If I Gave The State of the Union

Maura Alwyen

HVAC/R Master Craftsman, Chef, Woodworker, Journeyman Metalworker, somewhat of a Blacksmith, & Author I do my own stunts & cinematography. Typos, poor word choices, wrong but similar sounding word choices are par for the course. All mistakes are artisanally crafted from the finest oopsies. Otherwise I'm just a regular girl with opinions and a point from which to shout into the void.

Related Post Roulette

31 Responses

  1. Philip H says:

    There’s a lot of provocative thinking in here. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen such an interesting mix of libertarian and socialist budget approaches. Thanks for pulling together.

    That said – the federal budget is very detailed – that’s why its 20,000 or so pages long each year. With charts and tables and graphs and everything. Its actually a problem.Report

  2. North says:

    A really fascinating collection of policies. Certainly you’d have incredible love for your policy mix from big ag as the ethanol business is incredibly lucrative pork for them.

    I have to admit I found your rail suggestions a bit out there. America just isn’t laid out, legally or geographically, for rail. Maybe it was possible in certain urban locales back in the early 1900’s but it assuredly is not now. That’s spilled milk under the bridge as they say but good luck turning the clock back on that. The existing rail right of ways, as I understand it, work fantastically for what they’re meant for- freight- but are terrible for high speed rail which needs more level long stretches of straight rail than what exist now. We’re not China. We can’t (nor should we) expropriate the land needed for new right of ways nor can we (nor should we) run roughshod over the NIMBY’s who object and shoot the NIMBY’s who vehemently object. I just don’t see how we get from here to there.

    Encouraging electric cars strikes me as a great policy. What’s your position on electricity generation?

    I found your financial position very fascinating- I’ve never seen a person both encapsulate a left wing disdain for financial instruments and tools of price predicting/managing simultaneously with gold(or in this case silver) bug anti-fiat currency positions. What is the purported audit of the Fed/central banks expected to find? I’m going out on a limb here but I’m guessing, a whole lot of the Feb buying and selling (but especially buying) federal treasury bills? Isn’t that, uh, normal?Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to North says:

      Worth noting here that the Fed’s balance sheet and market operations are already a matter of public record. It’s constantly being audited all the time, with updates posted on a weekly basis. It’s not clear what those calling for an audit are hoping to find.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        They are hoping to discredit fiat money so we get forced back to gold or silver backed currency which they somehow think has magical economic powers. That’s and they detest anything appearing to be a central bank controlled by the government.Report

    • JS in reply to North says:

      “I’ve never seen a person both encapsulate a left wing disdain for financial instruments and tools of price predicting/managing simultaneously with gold(or in this case silver) bug anti-fiat currency positions.”

      A lot of Americans don’t understand the concept of currency in general, and especially fiat currency. Then they also don’t understand banking and budgeting outside of a household context.

      And, bluntly, a lot of politicians ruthlessly exploit that for votes — creating false or misleading analogies to household budgets, severing related concepts or straight-out “if we do this, this happens” casual relationships to push BS.

      And the Federal Reserve might as well be a magic wish and blame box. The number of people, for instance, who think QI was just permanently printing trillions of dollars and shoving it into the economy (instead of creating temporary liquidity) is staggering.

      (Then there’s taxation, where I often hear the lovely phrase of “Don’t bother taxing corporations/the rich, they’ll just evade it so don’t try. Strangely we have laws against murder and people keep killing but nobody suggests we repeal those laws, so maybe that’s something of a solvable problem…?)Report

      • Philip H in reply to JS says:

        As long as there are loopholes, people and corporations will exploit the loopholes. As long as we refuse to fully fund enforcement there will be uncollected revenue. Private companies don’t allow that situation to happen, ever. I remain mystified as to why the government should.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to JS says:

        You don’t bother taxing corporations because it’s a pass through cost. If you raise taxes on corporations across the board, or across a sector, they will simply raise prices or cut employee compensation, unless there is some significant competitive pressure to counter that (be it a Union to stop the loss of compensation, or outside corporate competitors to keep prices low).

        And that’s assuming that the hike in taxes doesn’t carry enough “loopholes”* to make the hike merely symbolic.

        *A misnomer if there ever was one.Report

  3. Michael Cain says:

    Come the end of June, do you plan on adding the important paragraph you missed here? When the Supreme Court announces their decision in West Virginia v. EPA and the three consolidated cases, they are going to significantly restrict what the executive branch departments and agencies can do with rule-making. I want to read your paragraph that starts, “Now, I know the Supreme Court has said that many of these things exceed the authority of the executive branch…”Report

  4. James K says:

    Why a silver standard? What are you hoping to achieve?Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to James K says:

      I’m a concerned that this would tarnish the standing of the US dollar.Report

    • JS in reply to James K says:

      In my experience gold (and I guess silver) bugs — and crypto bros — understand that fiat currency only has value because we all agree collectively it does, but they do not seem to understand that also applies to gold, silver, or bitcoins.

      And they certainly don’t grasp that while the Federal Government can indeed print more fiat (or destroy it), people can also dig up more silver — or hoard it, sell it, or otherwise manipulate it’s level of supply and thus alter it’s value, and doing so based on a desire for profit not a mandate for stable value and low unemployment rates.

      Anyone familiar with American history would have noted the amazing boom/bust cycles common with gold and silver currency (or currencies backed by such), as well as the fun random inflationary cycles caused by large gold or silver discoveries.

      It turns out gold and silver reserves do not actually grow roughly in line with population and GDP expansion and instead just do their own thing, regardless of how it effects the economy.Report

      • James K in reply to JS says:

        That’s my general experience too, but I prefer to have a conversation with a person and not an archetype, so I wanted to open by asking, since the format of the post precluded Maury from explaining her reasoning.Report

        • JS in reply to James K says:

          I’ve yet to meet anyone advocating for a return to silver or gold backed currency to understand exactly what it is they’re asking for and what it would entail.

          I’m not sure that’s so much “archetype” as literally “my entire lived experience, and you’d be surprised at how often it comes up”. It’s not even remotely the most fringe economic idea in America.

          I’m happy to read an expansion on Maury’s reasoning. I’d imagine it’d be relatively interesting given the context in which it was placed.Report

      • Pinky in reply to JS says:

        Doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations based on CPI data back to 1913, we averaged 2.6% inflation on average before 1971, and 3.9% inflation since.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to JS says:

        I’ve heard this line often, about how fiat currency only has value because we think it does, but I think it has only a partial truth to it.

        Currency really has two roles- one as a medium of exchange, and a second role as a speculative investment.
        A speculative purchase of euros really does have value only based on faith.

        But a unit of government backed currency, as I see it, has a very real and tangible value. Every unit issued represents the government’s ability to extract real tangible wealth out of the economy in the form of taxes.

        It could be said that the government has a lien on every single bit of wealth produced within its borders, and that the currency has a real value based on this.Report

      • Hannah Goldbert in reply to JS says:

        I think you are overly optimistic in terms of “The Federal Government.”
        Sooner or later, all fiat currencies’ value goes to zero. And that’s a bad thing for the economy too.

        Silver, for what it’s worth, has enough industrial/scientific applications that it isn’t purely faith-based. You have a hard limit on how low the price of silver can fall.Report

  5. Brandon Berg says:

    So I am instructing the Drug Enforcement Agency to stop prosecuting first time drug offenders and instead use the money intended for incarceration to get those people the quality health, and mental health care they need.

    Since you’re talking about health care, I assume that you’re talking about users, not traffickers. Is the DEA actually prosecuting people for personal possession on a regular basis?

    I don’t believe this to be the case. Here’s some congressional testimony from a DEA administrator:

    Mr. Goodlatte: Despite the fact this Administration’s current narrative in support of its position on sentencing reform relies on the supposition that too many low level, non-violent drug offenders are being investigated, prosecuted and incarcerated federally.

    The Justice Department’s own memo from last August
    providing guidance to Federal prosecutors stated that the
    Department of Justice has not historically devoted resources to prosecuting individuals whose conduct is limited to possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use on private property.

    Is this statement consistent with current and past DEA
    enforcement priorities?

    Ms. Leonhart: DEA has never targeted drug users of any
    kind, especially marijuana users. We go after those that are trafficking, those that are members of organizations and cartels, those that are gang members that are supplying our communities. We do not target users. We do not target patients.

    We go after crime. We go after the drug traffickers.

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg89809/html/CHRG-113hhrg89809.htm

    The DEA only makes 20-30,000 arrests per year. They don’t have the resources to mess around with users.Report

  6. Damon says:

    Diesel cars in the US are all but outlawed now. No one is importing them or manufacturing them (in any quantity)

    News update: “MAURA ALWYEN accidently fell and hit her head on the toilet–45 times. News at 11! The Vice President takes the oath of office in 15 minutes, promises to rescind all presidential directives deceased President Alwyen executed.”

    All social media and streaming services delete all records of President Maura Alwyen’s State of the Union Address.

    🙂Report

    • Philip H in reply to Damon says:

      Diesel powered personal vehicles in the US are 3% of the market. They are 50% percent in Europe. There is no legal restriction, just a massive marketing campaign aimed at something else. And frankly that will have to change once the Administration’s new fuel economy standards go into effect.Report

      • Damon in reply to Philip H says:

        It’s not going to change. Frankly, what Europe does doesn’t matter for the US, They aren’t being imported. The VX emission fisaco effective removed them from the market. The gov’ts policies and “nudging” is clearly to electric cars..Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H says:

        IIRC, diesel isn’t popular for POVs in the US because of CA emissions. CA requirements make diesel expensive for cars/SUVs (remember the Volkswagon scandal?). As CA goes, so goes the nation on emissions. It’s not that we can’t make diesel cars that meet CA emissions, it just adds to the price and detracts from the performance.

        Trucks and larger vehicles have different standards so they get a pass.Report

        • Diesels have a long history of problems for personal vehicles in the US. (You’ll be able to tell that I’m old.) Paraffin separation in deep cold weather. Necessary long warm-up times. Obnoxiously visible exhaust at times. Slow response when the driver floors it. Once these were established perceptions, difficulty finding diesel pumps.

          Europe has milder weather, a much longer history of underpowered gasoline engines, and a tax structure that makes diesel engine efficiency and higher energy content per liter much more attractive. You can only push catalytic cracking and such in the refineries so far, so Europe has long had surplus gasoline and the US surplus diesel. Lots of trade in finished petroleum products.Report

          • Damon in reply to Michael Cain says:

            Welp, as a personal owner a a diesel vehicle, I’ve had no problems. It’s a 2012 runs great, low maint. and is exempt from my states emissions testing programs. The car has good torque, gets amazing fuel economy and it handles almost as well as my prior German luxury sport coupe for thousands less.

            I believe that CA has special fuel requirements for ICEs as well.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Damon says:

              So according to you you own and operate a car no one imports to the US. That’s gonna be tough to replace with another I guess when the time comes.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Michael Cain says:

            My wife’s first car was a diesel VW rabbit. No performance issues and with her block heater plugged in in Eau Claire it started right up. So did everyone else who plugged in.Report

            • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H says:

              I had a friend in High School that had a 70’s(?) diesel Mercedes sedan. No problems starting up in the WI winter, and while it didn’t accelerate as hard as a gasoline sedan with a similar sized engine, it still had some get up and go, and you’d find yourself doing 90 down the highway, wondering how in the hell you got going that fast.Report