Forcing students to pay for their “social justice” training.
This is sort of like charging the families of those executed in Iran for the bullets.
Forcing students to pay for their “social justice” training.
This is sort of like charging the families of those executed in Iran for the bullets.
…and their unintended consequences.
As Glenn says, the solution for this at the VA is to simply give the vets vouchers to seek medical care.
Keith Cowing is pessimistic.
I’m not. NASA isn’t able to lead, but America will continue to.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of which…
Launch now NET Jnuary 15th, with static engine test on Saturday. That will be impressive by itself, even without a lift off. If it’s successful, chances of a successful launch go way up. I suspect the biggest uncertainty is plume interaction between the cores, and that will resolve it.
Yes, it is a big f**king deal.
We accelerated our property tax payment to get it in this year, before the limit hits next year. This will cost us, but I hope it has the effect of finally reining in the tax-hungry politicians in Sacramento. It might even make it a useful campaign issue to get a few more Republicans into the legislature.
[Wednesday-morning update]
States trying to come up with new schemes to get around the limits.
Anything except actually reducing spending.
Now that they’ve started to tackle taxes, it’s time for the Republicans to fix this as well:
As any student of political behavior might have predicted, both parties have learned to game these systems. Obamacare and the tax bill provide many examples.
Democrats got the CBO to count the revenue generated by Obamacare’s Community Living Assistance Services and Supports, or CLASS, Act taxes, fully aware that program’s postponed and unsustainable costs would never be incurred. Republicans likewise took some $300 billion of savings, suddenly available when CBO revised its clearly mistaken estimates of costs of repealing Obamacare’s individual mandate, to pay for tax cuts it couldn’t otherwise get.
This is not a criticism of CBO, which has remained properly nonpartisan and which was designed to estimate revenue flows, not personal choices — such as how many young people would rather pay small individual mandate penalties rather than expensive Obamacare health insurance premiums.
It’s a criticism of the notion that you can create neutral rules that will guide elected politicians to desired results. Politicians and the voters they represent have policy goals they believe important and they have their own ways — fallible, but subject to criticism and debate — to estimate the likely effects of particular policies.
My observation over the years is that systems intended to be failsafe are sure to fail. Forty years of the Budget Control Act regime and 30 years of the opaque Byrd Rule (which allows some Senate measures to pass with 50 votes while others require 60) have shown that both parties have figured out how to game the rules enough to foil those the intended purposes.
The notion that anyone, let alone the CBO, can with any accuracy predict the effects of changes in tax rates and other incentives over a decade is absurd.
This characterization (and inability to distinguish between giving someone money and allowing them to keep what they earned) shows that Democrats do not believe in private property. Leftists never do. Unless it’s their own, of course.
Scott Pace gave an important speech that is sure to upset many in the international space community at the Galloway Symposium a couple weeks ago. Laura Montgomery comments.
Speaking of Henry Hertzfeld, every time I see him, for over a couple decades now, we argue about the viability of reducing the cost of launch through reusability of rockets. I wonder what he’s thinking these days?
This, from Scott Adams, is a few days old, but worth posting. I’ll confess to thinking that he’d never be nominated, and if he was he’d never be elected, but since then, I’ve had no firm opinions on what would happen next. And of course, his advice goes in spades for media, but they won’t take it.
A https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/12/21/ladies-gentlemen-take-places/ is good for all of us.
As I noted on Twitter, many people, ignorant of economics, are going to be surprised at how little reducing corporate tax rates will have on government revenue. Because corporations don’t pay taxes; they only collect them.
Corporations will “pay” less tax, but shareholders and employees will end up paying more, because their income will go up, and the increased economic growth from reduced prices will result in additional revenue as well.
Sarah Hoyt has the grim tale.