Monthly Archives: October 2024

How To Avoid Paying Tariffs? Have a Friend in Washington

Posted on by Standard Reply

Eric Boehm @ Reason looks at political favoritism in the Trump administration

Container ship being pulled by tug boat | Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

American businesses bore the brunt of the tariffs hiked by former President Donald Trump, but having the right friends allowed some to dodge those higher costs.

Politically connected firms—specifically, those that donated to Republican candidates, including Trump—were more likely to succeed when asking the government for an exemption on imports that would normally be subject to tariffs, a new report concludes. It’s a finding that seems particularly relevant at the moment, as Trump is campaigning on a promise to hike more tariffs if he returns to the White House, while some conservatives see a potential second Trump term as a chance to reward friends and punish enemies.

In the study, four researchers reviewed 7,015 applications for exemptions that companies filed with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Of those, only 1,022 were approved—but requests from companies that reported spending more on lobbying were more likely to gain approval. Companies with political action committees that made campaign contributions to Republicans were even more likely to score an exception, while those that donated to Democrats were more likely to have exemptions denied.

Full Post by Eric Boehm @ Reason https://reason.com/2024/10/25/how-to-avoid-paying-tariffs-have-a-friend-in-washington/

Orange County Register on the Propositions

Posted on by Standard Reply

Proposition 2 asks if the state should borrow $10 billion to build new or renovate existing public school and community college facilities.

Endorsement: No on Proposition 2. Yet another flawed, very expensive school bond.

  • Proposition 3 asks if the California Constitution should be amended to recognize the fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. It would remove language in the California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Endorsement: Yes on Prop. 3 to affirm the state constitutional right to marriage

Prop 4

Proposition 4 asks if the state should borrow $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and lands.

Endorsement: No on Proposition 4, a giant feedbag of climate pork

Prop 5

Proposition 5 would lower the threshold to pass local bond measures for affordable housing and other infrastructure projects to 55% of voter approval, down from two-thirds in most cases.

Endorsement: No on Proposition 5, a path to higher property taxes and more wasteful spending

Prop 6

Proposition 6 would amend the California Constitution to remove the current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime.

Endorsement: No on Proposition 6. There’s nothing wrong with requiring prisoners to work.

Prop 32

Proposition 32 would raise minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on January 1, 2026. After that, it would go up each year based on how fast prices are going up.

Endorsement: No on Proposition 32. Minimum wage mandates are the wrong way to make California more affordable.

Prop 33

Proposition 33 would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances from enacting rent control on housing built after 1995.

Endorsement: No on Prop. 33. Expanding rent control will destroy California’s rental market.

  • Proposition 34 would require certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from a federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. It would also authorize statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices.

Endorsement: Yes on Proposition 34 to check the abuses of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation

Prop 35

Proposition 35 would make permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services.

Endorsement: No on Proposition 35. Let the Legislature figure out how to fund Medi-Cal.

  • Proposition 36 would allow felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if the defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions.

Endorsement: No on Proposition 36, a revival of failed and unjust policies 

Full Post on California Propositions @ https://www.ocregister.com/2024/10/16/opinions-about-californias-ballot-propositions-for-the-nov-5-2024-election/

Libertarian Party of California on the Propositions

Posted on by Standard Reply

Proposition 2: Public Education Facilities Bond Measure

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO

Reason: The Libertarian Party opposes using taxpayer dollars to fund large-scale government projects like school construction. There are concerns that the state may misallocate funds, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of accountability.

Proposition 3: Fundamental Right to Marry

LPCA Endorsed Position : YES

Reason: Individuals should have the freedom to marry any consenting adult, regardless of gender. It is not the state’s role to dictate the terms of marriage.

Proposition 4: Climate Bond Measure

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO

Reason: The Libertarian Party believes that the state should not be entrusted with more taxpayer funds, as it often mismanages resources and fails to deliver effective solutions.

Proposition 5: Housing and Public Infrastructure Bond Measure

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO

Reason: This measure is intrusive and undermines the real estate industry by placing additional burdens on taxpayers. Local governments should not have easier access to borrowing at the expense of fiscal responsibility.

Proposition 6: Ban Involuntary Prison Servitude

LPCA Endorsed Position : Pending Deliberation

Reason: Pending Deliberation

Proposition 32: $18 Minimum Wage Increase

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO

Reason: The Libertarian Party believes that the government should not interfere in the employer-employee relationship by mandating wages. Such regulations can lead to higher prices for consumers, force businesses to close, & harm the economy by reducing job availability.

Proposition 33: Rent Control Expansion 

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO

Reason: The Libertarian Party maintains that the government should not regulate rental prices. Imposing rent controls can create economic strain on landlords and disrupt the housing market, ultimately harming both property owners and tenants by reducing available housing options.

Proposition 34: Effort to Require Healthcare Group Patient Spending

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO OPINION

Reason: A YES vote will show opposition to use of taxpayer funds from MediCal to use for 3rd party real estate projects A NO vote allows no change in this allowed profit use. It appears that this prop as written will most likely be overturned in court

Proposition 35: Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal

LPCA Endorsed Position : NO

Reason: The Libertarian Party argues that the government should not dictate how tax revenue is allocated. Governor Newsom’s assurances do not address the broader economic implications for all Californians and may lead to inefficiencies in resource distribution.

Proposition 36: Penalty Increase for Theft and Drug Trafficking

LPCA Endorsed Position: Pending Deliberation

Source: https://ca.lp.org/voter-guide-2/