Recently in Politics, Government & Public Policy Category

David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey explain why it's impossible for the United States to default on its debts.

Those who warn of default confuse debt payments with other spending obligations. "A failure on the part of the United States to meet any obligation, whether it's to debt holders, to members of our military or to Social Security recipients, is effectively a default," Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in January.

That's nonsense. Authorized and even appropriated spending isn't "the public debt." For constitutional purposes, promised benefits from Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements aren't even property, as the Supreme Court held in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), and Congress has as much authority to reduce them as to increase them. When lawmakers were drafting the 14th Amendment, they revised Section 4's language to replace the term "obligations" with "debts." If the Treasury ran out of money, the constitutional obligation to pay bondholders would trump all statutory obligations to spend.

Ms. Yellen also said that "Treasury's systems have all been built to pay all of our bills when they're due and on time, and not to prioritize one form of spending over another." But as the Journal has reported, department officials conceded in 2011 that the government's fiscal machinery certainly could prioritize payments to bondholders, and the Federal Reserve prepared for such a contingency. There's no question enough money would be available: The government collects roughly $450 billion a month in tax revenue, more than enough to cover the $55 billion or so in monthly debt service.

We've got plenty of money to make debt payments, but we may need to cut other spending to do it -- which we would be Constitutionally required to do.

(HT: Instapundit.)

On Wednesday Trump visited East Palestine, Ohio, to support the people affected by the train derailment while Biden visited Kyiv to support Ukraine's fight against Russia.

Trump:

Trump visited East Palestine to show support for a community afflicted by the toxic train derailment as President Joe Biden, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and other administration officials have come under scrutiny for the federal response to the disaster.

"Get over here," was Trump's terse, three-word response to a reporter's question about what he would tell Biden.

The Buckeye State blitz wasn't perfect, with a strange self-promotional reference to Trump water.

But it was otherwise a vintage Trump performance the 2024 candidate should like to bottle.

Biden:

President Biden paid an unannounced visit Monday to Ukraine's capital, offering a huge show of support for the country the U.S. and its allies have helped to hold out during Russia's nearly-year-long, unprovoked invasion. Mr. Biden spent about six hours in Kyiv, much of it with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whom he promised unwavering backing and another tranche of American weapons.

"You know, one year later, Kyiv stands. Ukraine stands," Mr. Biden said while there. "Democracy stands. America stands with you and the world stands with you. Kyiv has captured a part of my heart."

At the most basic political level, which trip wins more votes? In my opinion, Trump's visit to Ohio is better politics. But on the other hand, only the sitting President can demonstrate American commitment with a foreign visit like Biden's, which highlights his stature.

Many people say that the Republican infighting over Kevin McCarthy's election as Speaker of the House is embarrassing and demonstrates a lack of governing ability. I say: more squabbling please!

The House should be raucous. Why should everything be politely settled behind closed doors? No! We need more public fighting among our elected officials, not less. Americans have major disagreements with each other, and the best way to sort them out is through politics. Let's have them yell and scream and argue with each other in public until someone wins.

I don't have a lot to say about the recent midterm election results.

• I was surprised by how poorly the Republicans did
• The American right needs to think long and hard about its political positions -- what they are, and how to communicate them to Americans in a persuasive way
• Candidate quality matters, and Trump has terrible judgement on this
• It's embarrassing that the results of the election aren't fully known almost a week later.

It seems like elections should be a lot easier. We've made them harder than they need to be.

• In-person voting on a single day, except for deployed military or invalids.
• Paper ballots, counted at the precinct. Properly maintain chain-of-custody records for ballots.
• Show identification to vote.
• Dip your thumb in purple ink after you've voted.

This isn't rocket science. All the fancy machines and alternate voting methods have made elections too complicated to administer in a transparent and credible manner.

Ross Douthat says that this fact is the heart of the abortion issue, and I agree. Our tolerance, acceptance, and promotion of at-will abortion is a shame and humiliation for our generation and civilization. Our descendants will look back on this era with horror and disgust, much like we view slavery and the Holocaust. They will ask, how could any people kill a million of their own children every year? How did they talk themselves into accepting the slaughter of the weakest and most vulnerable among them? How did they dehumanize the unborn, to be exterminated like insect infestations?

As is often the case, the solution to abortion -- and the general mistreatment of children and other vulnerable people -- won't be found in laws or courts. The solution is for each of us to honor the divine spark in each other. To recognize that we are each made in God's image, and each uniquely valuable because of that likeness.

Deuteronomy 27:19 -- 'Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.' And all the people shall say, 'Amen.'

Exodus 22:22 -- You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry.

Psalm 68:5 -- Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation.

In this new era of stagflation it's important to remember that inflation is caused by expectations as much as by reality. If people and companies expect prices to go up, they'll start charging more for their products and services -- which is inflation. Inflation will only abate when expectations change.

So when we see a chart like this one it's not only that President Biden's policies created inflationary conditions, his policies also created the self-fulfilling expectation of inflation.

Presidents Obama and Trump spent boatloads of borrowed money and ran up the deficit, but something about President Biden (and, of course, the global environment) really spooked people.

It's a complete mystery why anyone would bribe Hunter Biden. Maybe it's because of his artistic talent.

But how about the question of how this investigation, and Hunter's underlying conduct, relate to President Biden himself? To read the Times and the WaPo, you would think that that whole question is somehow out of line. The Times's piece doesn't even discuss Joe's role or involvement, although it does include this bizarre line:

It is not clear whether the criminal probe is focused solely on Hunter Biden, or if he is among a group of individuals and companies being scrutinized.

As if anyone, let alone China or Burisma, would pay Hunter Biden millions of dollars without an expectation that it would influence his father. Over in the WaPo, in the context of paragraphs relating to Hunter's dealings with Chinese government-controlled energy company CEFC, we have this:

The Post did not find evidence that Joe Biden personally benefited from or knew details about the transactions with CEFC. . . .

The funny thing is that outside the sole exception of the Biden family, large payments to the children of powerful government officials by those with interests potentially affected by those officials' actions are universally understood to be corrupt efforts to influence the officials. In cases involving people other than the Bidens, whether the official/parent "personally benefited" from the payments or "knew details" of the transactions are considered completely irrelevant.

I guess we'll never know.

President Eisenhower famously warned America about the risk of the military-industrial complex, but he also foresaw the risk that public policy would be captured by a scientific-technological elite.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

(HT: American Experiment and Victory Girls.)

Why did Willie Sutton rob banks? "Because that's where the money is."

Why does the government want to tax your IRA and ROTH retirement savings? Because that's where the money is.

When the income tax first went into effect in 1915, the top rate was a mere 7% and fell only on those making $500,000 a year or more -- that's $13.5 million in today's dollars. The vast majority of Americans paid the lowest 1% rate.

Today, the federal income tax ranges from 10%-37% and that's on top of all the FICA withholding. Today's top rate -- more than five times higher than it was in 1915 -- falls on those making about $500,000.

Which means top rate-payers are paying 5.5 more income tax on about one-thirtieth of the income.

The lowest rate-payers are paying 10 times more on about the same fraction -- and that still doesn't count FICA deductions, which hit the poorest the hardest.

The income tax was sold by early 20th Century progressives as a way to sock it to the rich, but progressives made sure it become a way to sock it to everybody.

You can bet your bottom dollar -- if Congress doesn't confiscate that, too -- that today's "Billionaire Income Tax" is tomorrow's "Tax Your Middle Class Retirement Accounts Before You Even Retire."

Our government is too big, too unaccountable, too incompetent, and entirely dedicated to growing its own power. Anything that can't go on forever, won't.

This is extremely disturbing. Two days ago Bob Woodward claimed in his new book that General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pledged to warn China in advance if then-President Trump ordered any attacks on Chinese interests. Many people found this claim difficult to believe, including myself.

This report claims Milley pledged to alert his CCP counterpart in the event of a U.S. attack, quoting Milley as saying: "General Li, you & I have known each other for now five years. If we're going to attack, I'm going to call you ahead of time. It's not going to be a surprise."

"In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the PLA, that the U.S. would not strike, according to a new book by Bob Woodward & Robert Costa."

Yesterday Milley issued a statement that doesn't deny the substance of the allegation.

NEW statement from Milley spokesman Col. Dave Butler:

"The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs regularly communicates with Chiefs of Defense across the world, including with China and Russia..."

"...These conversations remain vital to improving mutual understanding of U.S. national security interests, reducing tensions, providing clarity and avoiding unintended consequences or conflict..."

"...His calls with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability..."

"...All calls from the Chairman to his counterparts, including those reported, are staffed, coordinated and communicated with the Department of Defense and the interagency..."

"...Also in keeping with his responsibilities as senior military advisor to the President and Secretary of Defense, General Milley frequently conducts meetings with uniformed leaders across the Services to ensure all leaders are aware of current issues..."

"...The meeting regarding nuclear weapons protocols was to remind uniformed leaders in the Pentagon of the long-established and robust procedures in light of media reporting on the subject..."

"...General Milley continues to act and advise within his authority in the lawful tradition of civilian control of the military and his oath to the Constitution."

Nowhere in his statement does Milley deny bypassing the elected civilian leadership of the country to offer assurances to China.

Update:

Fox News reports that Milley's calls were coordinated with the Trump's Secretary of Defense.

But Fox News spoke with multiple individuals who were in the room during the two phone calls Milley had with Li. The calls, in October, were coordinated with then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper's office.

"They were not secret," a U.S. official told Fox News about the calls, which took place over video teleconference.

Fox News has learned there were about 15 people present for the calls. Sources told Fox News that there were multiple notetakers present, and said the calls were both conducted with full knowledge of then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and then-acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller - something Miller denied.

But Miller says:

Former acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who led the Pentagon from the period after the 2020 election through Inauguration Day, said that he "did not and would not ever authorize" Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley to have "secret" calls with his Chinese counterpart, describing the allegations as a "disgraceful and unprecedented act of insubordination," and calling on him to resign "immediately."

I think we need to hear from Mark Esper.

California is paying more than $2 million dollars to settle two cases in which the state infringed on the right to worship freely while favoring "essential businesses" -- i.e., giant corporations.

The State of California has agreed to pay more than $2 million to a San Diego church and a Catholic priest who challenged Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom's unconstitutional COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, which violated the Christian leaders' religious freedom. In two separate settlements, the state agreed to pay $1.6 million to South Bay United Pentecostal Church and $550,000 to Catholic Priest Father Trevor Burfitt. Judges also granted permanent injunctions to protect their religious freedom rights. ...

"Restrictions on churches cannot be more severe than restrictions on retail. We are pleased with the final results in these two important cases," Paul Jonna, another South Bay lawyer, added.

Many people are actively hostile towards religious believers and searching for ways to use government power to persecute them. This should be no surprise to Christians. Near the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus told his audience:

Matthew 5:10-12

10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Christians are commanded to pray for all our leaders, that they would come to Christ and that they would lead our country in a way that promotes peace.

Jonathan Turley is right to say the Colonial Pipeline cyber attack was terrorism but it was also worse than that: the attack was a probe that further revealed the weakness of America's critical infrastructure.

We've heard calls in recent years for an ever-widening category of "terrorists" to encompass groups from the Jan. 6 rioters to antifa to the the Ku Klux Klan. So it is surprising that the White House and the media have referred to the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attackers simply as "hackers." "DarkSide" is not just a collection of hackers -- it's a group of terrorists. And the only thing more concerning than the failure to label them correctly is the possible reason for not doing so. ...

The reason is obvious: Colonial just paid a ransom to terrorists. Moreover, gas pipelines are not just "a private company" but a highly regulated industry that closely follows the government's directions.

If it's not possible for the government to protect American infrastructure from cyber attacks then we need to significantly overhaul our national security system.

It may be true that the Biden administration concluded we are defenseless to cyber terrorism despite years of ransomware attacks and hundreds of billions of dollars in cybersecurity programs. If that is the case, the public should be informed. The failure of Congress and our government to defend against such terror attacks is a national security failure of breathtaking proportions. The Colonial Pipeline attack was the cyber equivalent of Pearl Harbor. In both cases, we were caught unprepared and unable to deal with a threat we knew was coming. Yet President Roosevelt did not issue a "no comment" on the critical facts after the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941. Back then, we believed FDR when he stated in his first inauguration that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

What the Biden administration seems to fear most is public recognition that it is afraid -- afraid of the vulnerability of our infrastructure, afraid that the public will learn what cyber terrorists already know.

Maybe America has been distracted by nonsense for a while and needs to refocus our attention on real problems.

A bunch of retired generals and admirals have written an open letter advocating for election integrity, along with a bunch of other rightist political preferences and talking points.

I have a lot of respect for our military, active duty and retired, but I think it would be best for America if our military didn't leverage its rightful prestige to influence politics.

Maybe things are "so bad" that it's justified now, and each person is free to make that determination for himself or herself.

This failure of accounting is a humiliating disaster for California.

It's been 21 months since we asked California to do what 49 other states, the federal government, and hundreds of America's largest cities do: produce a line-by-line state checkbook of its spending.

California Controller Betty Yee denied the request from our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com for its spending records, claiming she could not "locate" the records.

So we sued the State of California to get the records that are legally required to be made available to anyone who requests them.

Our initial request on Aug. 23, 2019 was ignored, and follow-up letters in October and November were finally acknowledged - 11 weeks after the first request, a violation of state open records law.

Our request was later denied, with Yee saying that they were "unable to locate" the evidence of payments that her office made and that it did not track payments that went through other state offices.

In 2018, Yee's office paid 49 million bills totaling $320 billion in payments. While she made the payments, she claims she cannot track the payments.

Somehow I doubt California would be very understanding to a taxpayer who couldn't "locate" any financial records when requested.

This failure of one of the most the basic functions of government is embarrassing beyond words.

Unfortunately for everyone, America's bureaucrats have squandered the broad and deep trust that Americans used to give them without question. Now some people are even questioning something as (apparently) simple as the census. "Why Did Biden Census Bureau Add 2.5 Million More Residents to Blue-State Population Count?"

There is something very fishy about the new 2020 Census Bureau data determining which states picked up seats and which states lost seats.

Most all of the revisions to the original estimates have moved in one direction: Population gains were added to blue states, and population losses were subtracted from red states. The December revisions in population estimates under the Biden Census Bureau added some 2.5 million blue-state residents and subtracted more than 500,000 red-state residents. These population estimates determine how many electoral votes each state receives for presidential elections and the number of congressional seats in each state. ...

Remember, the House of Representatives is razor-thin today, with the Democrats sporting just a six-seat majority with five seats currently vacant. So, a switch in a handful of seats in 2022 elections could flip the House and take the gavel away from current Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. A shift of 3 million in population is the equivalent of four seats moving from Republican to Democrat.

When all the "mistakes" favor the same group of people, which also happens to be the group in power, it's very reasonable for citizens to wonder if the "mistakes" are honest or not.

Does President Biden think the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence racist?

QUESTION, NEWSMAX: Thanks, Jen. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield, talking to a group on Wednesday said that white--essentially said that white supremacy is woven into our founding documents and principals. This statement is getting widely criticized as essentially parroting Chinese Communist Party talking points. So is the president going to remove her from her position as the representative before that body to promote United States values?

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE: Is the president going to remove an African American woman with decades of experience in the foreign service who is widely respected from her position as ambassador from the UN? He is not. He will--he is proud to have her in that position. She is not only qualified. He believes she is exactly the right person in that role at this moment in time.

I have not seen her comments. I will say that there's no question that there has been a history of institutional racism in this country. And that doesn't require the UN ambassador to confirm that.

QUESTION: So that's essentially the same lecture, though, that the Chinese delegation gave Secretary Blinken in Alaska last month. So does the President think our founding documents are racist?

PSAKI: I would say that I will--I will leave my comments to speak for themselves. And certainly, I think most people recognize the history of systemic racism in our country. And she was speaking to that.

Do Psaki's comments speak for themselves? I think so.

This latest poll by Rasmussen about election integrity is pretty interesting. (Do we care about polls anymore? They seem pretty bad, but what alternative is there?)

Majorities of all racial groups - 59% of whites, 56% of Blacks and 63% of other minority voters - say it is more important to make sure there is no cheating in elections than to make it easier to vote.

Likewise, majorities of all racial groups - 64% of whites, 59% of Blacks and 58% of other minority voters - reject the claim that voter ID laws discriminate against some voters.

No matter how you slice up the population, majorities support election integrity. That's good for America. No matter what policies you support, all Americans should support free and fair elections that get the results right. Otherwise we're not even a republic anymore -- we're governed by the people who count the votes.

Oh wait, there is one slice of the electorate that doesn't prioritize election integrity. Guess who?

President Biden's strongest supporters are least likely to say preventing cheating in elections is a higher priority. Among voters who strongly approve of Biden's job performance as president, just 17% say it's more important to make sure there is no cheating in elections than to make it easier to vote. By contrast, among voters who strongly disapprove of Biden's performance, 79% say it's more important to prevent cheating.

Presumably Biden's strongest supporters don't believe there was significant election fraud in the 2020 election, so maybe they don't support additional effort put towards election integrity because they don't think it's needed.

But election integrity is really a no-lose issue. You literally can't make an election too secure, as long as we define "secure" to mean that every eligible voter can vote exactly once, and no one else can vote at all. With all the boondoggles America spends money on, it's hard to imagine a more useful place to overspend.

Is President Biden planning to increase taxes retroactively?

As lawmakers consider the magnitude of tax increases, taxpayers may wonder whether those increases will be retroactive not only to the date of the bill's introduction, but to the beginning of 2021. This is an important and interesting question: Can tax legislative increases be retroactive?

Under conventional wisdom, the answer is no. Taxpayers should be able to rely on the existing rules; otherwise, the government's pursuit of short-term revenue could create a sense of unfairness and animosity toward the system.

In reality, however, the answer is yes. Tax increases can be retroactive, and not just to the current year.

Why not retroactively raise taxes all the way back to 2017 when Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act?

And why even stop there? California wants to tax your future too, even after you leave the state.

Knowing about the huge outbound migration from California, Cavuto asked what would happen to wealthy people who move out of state. Bonta said tax "avoidance" would not be allowed as California would tax them for the next ten years, despite what state they live in. Bonta said that because they accrued the wealth in California, the state can continue to legally tax it.

Like bank robbers, taxers have to "go where when the money is". If the present is all tapped out, tax the past and future.

The global pandemic lock-down is starting to look like one of the worst public health decisions in history. A year ago everyone was scared and no one knew what would happen -- but time has now revealed which leaders made good choices and which didn't. It's not random.

Even some Florida Democrats are wondering whether Gov. Ron DeSantis' widely panned COVID response might turn out to be right, Axios Tampa Bay's Ben Montgomery and Selene San Felice write.

More than 32,000 Floridians have died, a number the state's leaders rarely acknowledge. But the death rate is no worse than the national average -- and better than some states with tighter restrictions.

The L.A. Times compared Florida and California:

"California imposed myriad restrictions that battered the economy ... Florida adopted a more laissez-faire approach decried by public health experts -- allowing indoor restaurant dining, leaving masks optional."

On Sunday's front page, the N.Y. Times explored the positives -- from the sizzling real-estate market to Florida's low unemployment rate -- of an early reopening: "Much of the state has a boomtown feel."

Florida's unemployment rate is 5.1%, compared to 9.3% in California, 8.7% in New York and 6.9% in Texas, The Times notes.

The bottom line: "Despite their differing approaches," AP reports, "California and Florida have experienced almost identical outcomes in COVID-19 case rates."

I've written about class recently, and Astral Codex Ten has pulled together a bunch of class-related suggestions for the Republicans that are very intriguing.

Trump didn't win on a platform of capitalism and liberty and whatever. He won on a platform of being anti-establishment. But which establishment? Not rich people. Trump is rich, lots of his Cabinet picks were rich, practically the first thing he did was cut taxes on the rich. Some people thought that contradicted his anti-establishment message, but those people were wrong. Powerful people? Getting warmer, but Mike Pence is a powerful person and Trump wasn't against Mike Pence. Smart people? Now you're burning hot.

Trump stood against the upper class. He might define them as: people who live in nice apartments in Manhattan or SF or DC and laugh under their breath if anybody comes from Akron or Tampa. Who eat Thai food and Ethiopian food and anything fusion, think they would gain 200 lbs if they ever stepped in a McDonalds, and won't even speak the name Chick-Fil-A. Who usually go to Ivy League colleges, though Amherst or Berkeley is acceptable if absolutely necessary. Who conspicuously love Broadway (especially Hamilton), LGBT, education, "expertise", mass transit, and foreign anything. They conspicuously hate NASCAR, wrestling, football, "fast food", SUVs, FOX, guns, the South, evangelicals, and reality TV. Who would never get married before age 25 and have cutesy pins about how cats are better than children. Who get jobs in journalism, academia, government, consulting, or anything else with no time-card where you never have to use your hands. Who all have exactly the same political and aesthetic opinions on everything, and think the noblest and most important task imaginable is to gatekeep information in ways that force everyone else to share those opinions too.

The parties are realigning. It's political musical chairs, and some people who are used to sitting in thrones may get stuck with footstools. How can you tell who is most likely to be left without a good seat? Check who is angriest. Then assume that no matter what they say they're mad about, they're actually upset and frightened at the prospect of losing status and power.