The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Politics]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-05-22 12:24 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 326 references
[Comments enabled]  

That Trump told the Demonscat leadership this morning that when they're done with their "investigation" game he's willing to negotiate and sign an infrastructure bill.  Otherwise,******off.

Good for him.

It's about ******n time that we had a President who understood that he wields not only a veto pen, as Obama famously claimed, but that the office of the President as a co-equal branch of government has neither the ability to force Congress to do anything nor does it have an obligation of cooperation.

That's what co-equal is.

Obama undertook a whole host of "executive order" type actions, including DACA -- all of which contained the language that they create no due process or other rights.  The courts have repeatedly (over two dozen times!) flatly ignored this fact associated with executive orders; they are always -- from the inception of the Republic -- of no value beyond the whim of the person sitting in the Oval Office!

Even the changes eventually upheld by the USSC (of which there have been a few) were analyzed on the merits instead of the flat-out prohibition of extending these "protections" beyond the termination of a given Presidency -- and which is prominently on the face of every executive order.

I get it that Pelosuckmybigone and Schitter think they have the "upper hand" given the propensity of judges to ignore the law.  The people could, but haven't thus far, decided that if judges will not uphold the law then they won't either and down that road lies madness -- but that's a road judges can choose not to enter.  Until they do the people damn well ought to make clear that the price of such nonsense may well be 1776, since it is a founding principle that all are equal before the law.  If not, well..... why obey it at all?

As for Schumer's complaint, **** him.  Was it planned?  Yep.  It sure was.  So what Chuckie?  Pelosuckme just an hour before your meeting claimed Trump was Nixon.  Expecting him to sit and have a "congenial" negotiation with someone who just called you a felon on national TV is outrageous; what she should have heard is not a door slam but instead a very loud "**** you!"  You want to run a circus in Congress?  Fine -- you get treated as a carnival barker until you cut that crap out.

Don't like it?

What are you going to do about it, other than whine like a 2-year old?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2019-05-15 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 181 references
[Comments enabled]  

I find this tremendously amusing....

House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff floated a new idea at an Axios News Shapers event this morning about how to enforce subpoenas against the Trump administration: fine officials who ignore them.

Why it matters: It's a risky move for House Democrats if they go ahead with it — because it's a largely untested idea, it's not 100% clear that Congress has the authority to do it, and it's definitely not clear how they would enforce it.

Yeah, it's not that simple either.

The inherent contempt power was last used in the 1930s; it was used to arrest people who refused to come testify -- physically arrest them.  But the premise of issuing fines has never been used by Congress.  Whether it actually has the authority to do so and how it could collect them is an open question -- and sure to be challenged.

The not-funny part of this garbage is that when Obama was President the Republican House subpoenaed Eric Holder in relationship to Fast-n-Furious, his gun-running program that got a US Border Agent (and hundreds if not thousands of Mexicans) killed.  Holder put up the middle finger, Congress held him in contempt, the referral went to the same department he headed which then (of course) exonerated him.  Duh.  Congress kept up the pressure, however, but the DOJ ran out the clock.  And that's the basic problem -- it can take years to put these cases through the courts; long enough for it to moot the issue.

Note that what Holder refused to comply with was a subpoena for materials by low-level people within the department, well under his level, that had blocked disclosure and retaliated against whistleblowers.  Obama claimed "executive privilege" over things that had nothing to do with his deliberations with anyone -- well, at least as far as we know.

What Barr has refused to disclose is grand jury material.  He's absolutely correct in doing so; there is literally nothing that would corrupt future investigations more than to destroy the secrecy of the grand jury.

But more to the point, and what Schiff better be damned careful of, is that he seems to think Republicans will never get the House back again.  That's what Reid thought in the Senate too when he changed procedural rules on the filibuster.  He was wrong and the result of his own actions is that now nearly any appointment cannot be filibustered.

If Schiff goes down this road and come 2020 the Democrats lose the House I want to see Eric Holder and Obama personally arrested and put in the dock under the US House of Representatives.  In fact, I can come up with a dozen or more of the jackwads in the DOJ/FBI that can join them too -- including Comey.  I suspect there's a long list of those who would refuse to testify and who then could be have contempt voted upon directly -- and tossed in jail.

Go ahead and do it Schiff, if you're actually so ****ing stupid to try this.  If you manage to establish that the power you seek in fact exists I will be cheering on the day you twist on the end of the rope you in fact purchased and demanded be installed.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2012-10-04 17:19 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 1713 references
 

Here's The Bill that either Obama or Romney could propose and demand be passed.

(For that matter so could Gary Johnson, and if he had a lick of sense, he would as this would be a "break the glass" moment for the Libertarians, but I digress...)

THE BIPARTISAN LEGALIZATION OF WORLDWIDE MEDICAL ENHANCEMENT And PATIENT HEALTH AUGMENTATION REMEDIAL MARKET ACT

An Act to redress the imbalances in the economy related to health care products and services, enforce the law, improve patient outcomes, enhance access to treatment modalities, decrease costs and open competition in the Medical Industry.

 

Article I - Competition

  1. The Sherman, Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts shall apply to medical commodities, services and related products without exception, including but not limited to pharmaceuticals, hospital services, clinical services, medical devices, implements, drugs and supplies, financial services such as payment plans and health insurance or any other service or good used or provided for the purpose of promoting health, treating or diagnosing disease, provided that said goods, products or services are marketed, sold, advertised or used anywhere inside the United States and its territories.

  2. Medical providers shall post via conspicuous method and bill at a level price for their services to all users of like kind and quantity without regard to the means of payment, subject only to reasonably-defensible discounts for volume of service or product rendered or sold.

  3. All State CON laws and other regulations that serve to prevent, deter, bar or impair medical good or service providers from entrance or exit to or from a market area, where said facilities do or may serve customers on an interstate basis, are hereby preempted and void under the Interstate Commerce Clause to the US Constitution.

  4. The doctrine of first sale shall be applied to all medical and health-related commodities, pharmaceuticals, supplies and goods, including but not limited to drugs, medical devices, implements and health-related products, provided that such goods are truthfully and lawfully labeled as to their origin, manufacturer and contents, irrespective of their point of original purchase.

  5. No manufacturer, distributor or other seller of medical goods or commodities may prohibit by contract or other provision the effects of Article I Section 4, and any such clause in existing contracts for sale are hereby declared void as a violation of public policy.

  6. Medical goods and commodities permitted or lawfully offered for sale in nations and territories other than the United States may be imported, marketed and sold for consumption and use in the United States irrespective of FDA approval provided that any drug, device, implement or commodity not approved by the FDA shall be conspicuously labeled that it does not have FDA approval in no less than 14 point white print on a black background on all bulk and, where applicable, individual use or dispensed packages.  All such unapproved drugs, devices, implements and commodities shall bear or have enclosed with their packaging truthful information as to their exact contents, purity, method of action, expected benefits and known risks and side effects of its use.  All such unapproved drugs, devices, implements and commodities shall be explicitly disclosed to the consumer before use or administration by any licensed medical facility or physician and an explicit release shall be obtained from said consumer in advance of the use of such unapproved drugs, devices, implements or commodities.

 

Article II -- Access To Medical Care And Records

  1. EMTALA is hereby repealed.

  2. Privately-run and operated medical clearing firms are hereby authorized who citizens and visitors to the United States may register with to document verifiable means of coverage or payment for potential medical services and products.  These firms shall be regulated only as to privacy of information maintained.

  3. Such registration shall include not only insurance coverage by traditional health insurance firms but also registration of escrowed funds or other unencumbered and liquid assets available for disbursement in the event of unplanned and emergency medical expense.

  4. Medical providers may query any such registry only for a bona-fide purpose of determining whether a proposed procedure is covered for payment, and shall not issue more than one query per patient, per medical incident without that patient or their agent's explicit approval.

  5. Registries shall not provide information on coverage or escrowed and liquid limits beyond a response indicating whether the explicit and queried amount proposed to be billed is or is not covered.

  6. Patients shall own all records in any such registry, including the record of all inquiries and shall have a right of inspection of any such records during reasonable business hours and by reasonable means.

  7. Medical records shall be the property of the consumer to whom they pertain, and shall be provided to and may be maintained by the consumer upon his or her reasonable request.  No provider shall provide access to or permit the copying of any such record to any third party without the explicit authorization of the consumer or his or her lawful representative, except where applicable statute mandates the disclosure of said records such as in the case of communicable disease or mandatory reporting statutes.

  8. A registry or medical provider that violates any provision of this section shall be liable for all damages that a consumer shall suffer, but not less than $25,000 (twenty-five thousand dollars US) per incident in liquidated damages if the actual amount of damages shall be less.

  9. EMS providers and systems shall maintain a registry of charitable hospitals and other providers of medical care willing to provide services to those who have no verifiable or actual means of payment so as to be able to expeditiously make decisions on transport of indigent patients, and shall update their listing of such available care facilities not less than once daily.

 

Article III - Enforcement

  1. Consumers, employers or other parties harmed by violations of this act shall have a private right of recovery for all harm sustained in triplicate, but not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each occurrence.

  2. Each day that any such violation occurs shall constitute a separate and distinct civil offense.

  3. Willful and intentional violations of consumer privacy, or any act of conspiracy between parties to violate any provision of this act shall be a Federal Felony Criminal Offense punished by not less than 2 nor more than 20 years of confinement and a fine of not less than $10,000 or more than $100,000 for each count, except that if permanent physical injury shall occur to any person as a consequence of said violation the penalty shall be not less than 10 nor more than 25 years of confinement and a fine of not less than $50,000 nor more than $250,000 for each count, and if death to any person shall occur as a consequence of said violation the penalty shall be not less than 25 years to life of confinement and not less than $100,000 nor more than $2,000,000 for each count.

 

That would pretty much do it, I suspect (that is, cut the cost of medical care by about 80% -- if not more.)

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

The piece sent "over the transom" taking a shot at Governor Johnson's possible motives for running as a Libertarian contains some interesting theories.

However, it also contains some disturbing claimed facts, and one thing I did do before publishing that piece was check them.

Unfortunately the facts cited are correct and Gary is being less-than-honest.

This is what his campaign web site claims on his record:

  • Left office with New Mexico as one of the only four states in the country with a balanced budget
  • Left New Mexico with a budget surplus
  • Used Line Item Veto thousands of times to trim the budget
  • Vetoed 750 bills during his time in office; more than all other governors combined
  • Cut over 1,200 government jobs without firing anyone
  • Created more than 20,000 new jobs
  • First New Mexico Governor to challenge education status quo and propose statewide voucher program
  • Restored State General Fund reserves to more than $222 million from a low of $28.1 million
  • Limited annual state budget growth to 5.0% during eight years in office
  • Cut taxes 14 times while never raising them—a first for New Mexico
  • Vetoed 32% of the total number of bills submitted for his signature

This all sounds good, right?

Well, no.  Yes, the budget rose 5% per year during his time in office.  Unfortunately that's a roughly 50% increase in the size of the State Government during those eight years.

That might be ok if the rate of increase was less than the rate of inflation.  So let's check the rate of inflation and see if Governor Johnson was telling the truth or if he's being less-than-honest with the public.

In 1995 the CPI index stood at 150.3.  In 2003 when Johnson left office it stood at 181.7.  That's a 20.9% increase over the same eight years.

In other words Gary Johnson increased spending in New Mexico at approximately 240% the rate of inflation -- or about double and a half as fast as prices rose.

Do you define that as "fiscally conservative" or "responsible"?  I do not.  Further, can you find any part of spending in this chart that he actually cut during his time in office or did every single one of these bars get bigger?

 by genesis 

Credit: Usgovernmentspending.com

Then there's the claim of a "balanced budget".   That's a nice claim.  Unfortunately it was achieved by lying, just as it has been in the other states, because the amount of debt the State Government had outstanding nearly doubled during those very same years.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1995_2003NMb_13s1li111mcn_H0s

 by genesis

That's a gross $2.78 billion increase in debt during those years.  The population of the state was (as of 2003) 1.87 million, so Governor Johnson added about $1,500 in debt to the financial responsibility of every man, woman and child in New Mexico during his administration and that's only for the state itself -- municipal governments added another billion, so the total was well over $2,000 per person.

Is that "fiscally conservative"?

Ron Paul has often been called "Dr. No" for his refusal to accede to more spending and bigger deficits.  While he's one man in Congress, you can rarely if ever find a bill that he has approved which increases spending and public debt. 

Gary Johnson, on the other hand, was the man with the pen who signed the spending bills in the end analysis.  He is the one who was responsible for approval of the budget and the actual spending and borrowing profile of the State.  And he has repeatedly claimed, and claims today, a huge number of vetoes.

It's true that Governor Johnson vetoed a huge number of bills.  But the implication he wishes you to believe, that he shrunk the size of government in New Mexico and thus that he also shrunk residents' responsibility, both directly in current government spending and in the debt that was left for both residents who voted for various policies and the children and unborn unable to vote for or against those policies is simply false.

Governor, you have some explaining to do if you expect me to support or vote for you, as I believe you have actively and intentionally misled not only myself personally but the Libertarian Party in general on the actual facts when it comes to your spending and debt record as Governor.

Nobody should vote for this man believing he will cut their debt load or actually shrink one single line item in the Federal Budget, as his history shows that over eight years as Governor of a small state he saddled every single resident with more than $1,500 worth of additional debt, sanctioned municipal and local governments adding roughly $1,000 more, and in fact added to State Spending in all of the categories he claims he will "control" or "cut" including pensions, health care and education. 

Not one of those areas was cut in size during his time in office.

And that, my friends, is a fact.

Ps: Before someone pipes up and tries to claim that population increases were responsible for this, the population of New Mexico in 1995 was ~1.7 million.   In 2003 it was 1.9 million, or 12% higher, an approximately 1.4% annual expansion.  It is thus immaterial to the expansion of the State budget and debt, and one cannot lay off these expansions on "growing population"; any such attempted claim is a futher lie.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)