Category: Government

Equal Protection Clause as implemented by the City of Cambridge (buy stuff from women)

by philg

Here’s a recent email from the City of Cambridge, a taxpayer-funded enterprise that in theory is bound by the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause:

Everyone is encouraged to join the celebration by supporting Cambridge women-owned businesses and other entrepreneurs during the month of October and beyond. To find women-owned businesses in your neighborhood, visit the online Cambridge Business Diversity Directory.

The full event page links to this directory, which says “The Directory aims to elevate businesses owned by women, people of color, veterans, people with disabilities, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and individuals of Portuguese descent.” The event page also notes “These events recognize, support, and are inclusive for all who self-identify as women or with womanhood, including transgender, gender fluid, and non-binary persons.”

I can’t figure out how any of this is legal. What in the Constitution allows a city to favor citizens (and migrants!) of one gender ID out of the 74 recognized by Science? And what in the Constitution allows a city to prepare a business directory that excludes most companies owned by white males unless they swear that they’re 2SLGBTQQIA+?

Readers: What are you doing this month to increase your purchases from companies that are purportedly owned by “women” (however the term may be defined) and reduce your purchases whose owners have other gender IDs?

Full post, including comments

If marijuana stores were “essential” could Donald Trump keep our national parks open during the government shutdown?

by philg

NBC:

The contingency plan says that about 64% of the National Park Service workforce is set to be furloughed and that those kept on would perform “excepted” activities, such as law enforcement or emergency response, border and coastal protection and surveillance, and fire suppression and monitoring.

If state governors, such as in California and Maskachusetts, were able to declare marijuana stores “essential” during coronapanic, and therefore legally allowed to continue operating, why can’t Donald Trump declare national parks to be “essential”? The hook could be that we have an obesity national public health emergency and the parks allow people to exercise more. The hook could be that we have a racial equity/equality emergency and the parks need to be open so that People of Color can get into them.

Separately, in the Department of Legacy Media Fighting Against Misinformation, the New York Times:

Without a compromise, hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be sent home without pay,

ChatGPT:

In January 2019, Congress enacted the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, which made retroactive pay automatic for any future shutdown. That law requires that all federal employees furloughed or working without pay during a lapse in appropriations must receive full back pay after the shutdown ends.

Federal workers fortunate enough to be declared “non-essential” are, in other words, on a guaranteed paid vacation, which is reported, as a fact by the New York Times, to be “without pay”. They can’t be 100 percent sure when their windfall vacation checks will arrive, but they can be 100 percent sure that they money will show up, maybe while they are traveling in Europe or enjoying Xbox.

From the Johnstown Flood National Memorial, our Science-following government reminds us that invasive plants are bad, unlike the invasive humans that Science assures us are at least good and probably great for all Americans:

Some more photos from this National Park Service site:

Related:

Full post, including comments

Your tax dollars at work: UCLA’s “director of race”

by philg

“UCLA race and equity official placed on leave over social media posts about Charlie Kirk killing” (ABC):

UCLA’s director of race and equity has been placed on leave over social media posts he made about the killing of Charlie Kirk, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday.

Jonathan Perkins, an official with UCLA’s Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Office, apparently published the remarks on BlueSky. The posts seemed to express both satisfaction and indifference to the fatal shooting of the conservative activist.

The posts were “written in my own hand, in my own voice, in no way the echo of my employer, UCLA,” Perkins said in a written statement provided to The Times, adding that they were protected by the First Amendment.

“It’s a truly sad day. My livelihood could ultimately be threatened for stating, in the clearest terms, that I felt no grief at the death of an avowed white nationalist- (a) man who dedicated his life to despising mine, to despising my people, to despising our very existence,” Perkins’s statement said. “I am devastated to learn of higher ed colleagues around the country, facing similar and much worse consequences, including termination. I admit, I thought UCLA was different. I hope we are.”

What I find interesting about this is that taxpayers, both California and federal, are forced to work extra hours every week in order to pay someone to be “director of race” in a society where a government-run enterprise isn’t supposed to be able to consider race (14th Amendment). (Why would taxpayers in Arkansas and Maine have to pay, you might ask? Despite decrying inequality, California universities insist on feeding at the federal trough rather than using state tax dollars and leaving the federal money for universities in poorer-than-average stages, such as the Islamic Republic of Michigan.)

What did the Director of Race at UCLA have to say? From the Daily Mail:

These sentiments are a little different from what my Democrat friends in Maskachusetts have said. They mostly say that they’re happy that Charlie Kirk was killed (and sad that Donald Trump wasn’t), but it isn’t personal as it apparently was with Director of Race Perkins. The Maskachusetts Democrats didn’t like what Charlie Kirk had to say and are happy that he was killed because now he can’t say anything more.

Full post, including comments

Reminder that the National Parks could run at a huge profit

by philg

It’s peak tourist season here in the U.S. Also, Americans are fighting because we want a vastly larger and more powerful government than can be funded with the taxes that we’re willing to pay. Here’s a reminder that our National Parks could be run at a huge profit if we charged the same prices that the Chileans and Navajo charge for similar experiences.

From two years ago… What if our National Parks charged Navajo prices?

We’re still charging less than 1/25th of what the Chileans charge (assume a 15-day vacation for four European visitors who currently buy an $80 annual pass) and stuffing the National Park Service full of $billions in general tax revenue (collected from the working class who already have had to pay for the deferred or forgiven student loans of the gender studies graduates). Americans assume that it is impossible for an entity to turn a profit after receiving, for free, some of the world’s most valuable land. The idea that this entity must be forever propped up by tax revenues collected from those who will never see any of this land is accepted uncritically.

I’m not sure how disturbed I should be by this, but it looks like Donald Trump has been thinking along the same lines. WSJ:

Full post, including comments

WSJ: Open borders make the U.S. rich and also Social Security is going broke faster than expected

by philg

Happy Independence Day for those who celebrate our traitorous rebellion against legitimate British rule and a total tax burden of 2 percent of income, not a penny of which the British ever spent outside of North America (the Brits spent a huge amount of treasure defending the white immigrants from Native Americans who objected to being replaced via white immigration).

Since a country is defined primarily by its people, let’s take a look at two perspectives on low-skill immigration today. Both perspectives are from the same newspaper, one from when Joe Biden was still running for reelection on the basis of what the media reported to be his perfectly sharp mind. The second is a recent piece, published during the Trump Dictatorship v2.0.

June 2024, Wall Street Journal:

Immigration Is Behind the Strong U.S. Economy

The U.S. population is aging, and millions of baby boomers retire each year. We can expect that absent immigration, we would have a decreasing working-age population and shrinking employment for decades to come—especially considering the low fertility rate. … immigrants help the economy in a few other ways. First, immigrants are more likely to be of working age than their U.S.-born counterparts, so they can help support American retirees through their labor and taxes. Second, immigrants bring innovation that helps the economy grow.

June 2025, Wall Street Journal:

Social Security’s Potential Insolvency Date Moves Up One Year

With an aging U.S. population and a smaller share of American workers who pay into it, Social Security could become unable to pay full retirement and disability benefits in 2034, one year earlier than reported last year, the program’s trustees said Wednesday. … The report also said that Medicare’s hospital-insurance trust fund would be able to pay 100% of benefits until 2033, three years earlier than projected in last year’s report. At that stage, the fund’s reserves would be depleted and the income going into the program would be able to pay 89% of total scheduled benefits.

We had four years of open borders under the Biden/Harris/WhoeverWasActuallyInCharge administration and at least 10 million migrants who enriched us economically as well as culturally. We had SARS-CoV-2, a virus that killed nearly 1 million over-65 Americans who were, according to #Science, otherwise in perfect health and would have been collecting Social Security and Medicare for 10 additional years. Despite these massive tailwinds, Social Security and Medicare are running out of money faster than expected?

I wonder if this changes the calculation of the optimum time to begin drawing on Social Security. Traditionally, healthy people are told to wait until age 70, three years beyond Full Retirement Age (67 for those born in 1960 or later), in order to maximize the payout. But if benefits are likely to be cut in 2034, it might be smarter for a 67-year-old in 2025 to begin taking Social Security right now.

See also “Immigration does not solve population decline” (Aporia):

The thing is: immigrants age too. This means that while immigration can definitely reverse population decline, it can’t do much for population aging. Assuming immigrant age-structure and fertility remain constant, the difference in the working-age share of the population in 2060 between zero net migration and 2019 levels of migration in the United States is… 2% (57% vs 59%).

The good news for those who believe that working age migrants will solve all of our fiscal problems: “Kilmar Abrego Garcia brought back to US, appears in court on charges of smuggling migrants” (ABC). Also “Ohio man hid horrific role in 1994 Rwanda genocide to enter US, arrested after years on the run: DOJ” (New York Post). Imagine the taxes that Vincent Nzigiyimfura, admitted to the U.S. at age 49 and currently aged 65, will be paying after he serves the 30 years in prison that our wise government overlords are currently attempt to impose on him.

Loosely related, residents of Westfield, Maskachusetts who appear to have a personal stake in Social Security benefit levels hold a whites-only “No Kings” protest:

Also, it is never appropriate to conduct a fiscal analysis when considering immigration. If you’re not a hater you have to support open borders. Sticker on a mailbox outside a coffee shop in Boise, Idaho, yesterday:

Love has no borders.

Full post, including comments

How can state secrets stay secret in a world with Signal and cryptocurrency?

by philg

Countries still have intelligence, counterintelligence, and all of the other Cold War-era espionage systems, right? How is it possible for Government A to have a secret that Government B wants? What stops Government B from

  1. publicizing a Signal tip line
  2. taking messages from a cash-hungry employee of Government A
  3. after determining that the messages, and any attached documents, are genuine, paying out some cryptocurrency to the rat

? In the old days it was difficult to betray one’s government. A military officer would have to find a way to meet a foreign government’s spies, not get followed to the meeting spot, receive a briefcase full of cash or trust that money had been deposited into a Swiss bank account, etc. Today, on the other hand, unless Government A has a way to read Signal messages on every device and also map its citizens to crypto wallets how can Government A prevent its officials and employees from selling secrets?

Loosely related… imagine how inflated a Californian’s head would have to be for him/her/zir/them to imagine that he/she/ze/they was an expert on “the preservation of Democracy” (from Los Angeles):

Full post, including comments

Media that isn’t state-affiliated can’t survive without state funding

by philg

NPR says that it isn’t state-affiliated media because it gets less than 1% of its funding from the government/taxpayers (2023). NPR also says that it can’t survive without taxpayer funding (2025).

2023: “NPR quits Twitter after being falsely labeled as ‘state-affiliated media'”

2025: “The Order threatens the existence of the public broadcasting system“

Full post, including comments

Maryland fails to reassess a Montgomery County house after it was bulldozed

by philg

Today we begin our celebration of Public Service Recognition Week, in which we “honor the people who serve our nation as federal, state, county, local and tribal government employees.”

In writing the post about my mom’s 25th high school reunion, I noticed that Zillow in 2025 displays our old family homestead, which was bulldozed in 2012…

Zillow still shows the crummy 1953 Cape Cod house in which we grew up (address above) and lists the mansion’s 1,603 square feet of space (we also used the basement, though, and a screen porch that was glassed in and maybe isn’t included). However, it was bulldozed within hours of being sold in 2012 and the Indian immigrants who purchased it built a McMansion in its place.

What I didn’t notice until more recently was that the Zillow page indicates that my parents’ old house wasn’t reassessed despite having been bulldozed and replaced by a vastly-more-valuable McMansion:

Montgomery County, Maryland is run by Democrats who would be the first to tell you how much smarter they are than Republicans. Ditto for the state government, which I think might be responsible for assessment. The house next door, 6409 Dahlonega, was bulldozed and its assessed value went up from $382,000 in 2006 to $1.7 million in 2007 (today at $2.2 million). My parents’ old house would have brought in more than double the current property tax over the past 13 years if it had been assessed at market rates.

(Incidentally, the people who built the magnificent edifice at 6409 Dahlonega are no longer paying property, income, or, when the time comes, estate taxes to Montgomery County/Maryland. They moved to Clearwater Beach, Florida towards the tail-end of coronapanic.)

These data shatter my preconceptions about government, which I thought was a well-oiled machine for collecting maximum taxes. Maybe there is some rule in Maryland or in Montgomery County that prevents a reassessment after a bulldozing, but I don’t know what it would be.

Anyway, let’s celebrate the property tax assessors of Maryland for their hard work, even if trees obscured their view of the old 1,600-square-foot cottage that was replaced by a hulking McMansion.

Very loosely related…

Full post, including comments

When a rogue president defied the Supreme Court

by philg

I think that we can all agree that our democracy would be at an end if a president were to defy the Supreme Court. Has it ever happened? I asked ChatGPT. Here are some snippets:

In the early 1930s, FDR removed the U.S. from the gold standard and invalidated gold clauses in both public and private contracts. These clauses had allowed creditors to demand payment in gold, insulating them from inflation.

The Supreme Court heard several consolidated cases, the most famous being Perry v. United States, which challenged the government’s abrogation of gold clauses in government bonds.

There was press speculation that FDR might defy the Court if it ruled against him, especially since the stakes were so high for the administration’s economic agenda.

In a narrow 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld the government’s position, essentially avoiding a constitutional crisis.

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the majority opinion in Perry v. United States, holding that while the government’s action was technically unconstitutional, the plaintiff had not suffered a legally redressable loss.

Yes, Franklin D. Roosevelt did prepare a contingency speech in the event that the Supreme Court ruled against him in the 1935 gold clause cases, particularly Perry v. United States.

The speech was drafted in anticipation of the Supreme Court potentially striking down his policies on invalidating gold clauses.

In this prepared address, FDR was ready to assure the public that he would not allow the economic system to collapse, even if it meant ignoring the Court’s ruling. The draft included language that strongly implied he would defy the decision.

According to historical sources, including William Leuchtenburg’s writings and Henry Morgenthau’s diaries, the speech essentially framed any contrary Court ruling as a threat to national survival, and FDR positioned himself as the defender of the people’s economic security over rigid constitutional formalism.

Here’s a paraphrase of the key idea from that draft speech:

If the Supreme Court were to rule that the government must repay debts in gold, then the administration would have no choice but to protect the nation’s economy by refusing to comply—suggesting a potential constitutional crisis.

Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR’s Treasury Secretary, kept detailed diaries. In entries from January 1935, he discusses FDR’s draft speech and concerns about the Supreme Court decision. These diaries are held at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and are available digitally. Look for entries in January–February 1935 regarding the gold clause litigation.

Secondary source: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932–1940 by William E. Leuchtenburg:

“[FDR] had even prepared a radio address for the evening of the day the Supreme Court ruled, asserting that the government would defy the Court if it invalidated the gold policy. But the Court, by a narrow margin, spared him the necessity.”

Full post, including comments

Racial equity in the world of IDs

by philg

The credentialed white elites of the Northeast used to say that Black people weren’t smart enough to get ID. Now, after remarkable progress toward racial equity, they’re saying that it is they themselves who aren’t smart enough. REAL-ID will supposedly be required soon for getting through TSA. Maskachusetts began issuing REAL-ID in March 2018 (source). Folks in MA agree that Floridians are stupid and that Florida doesn’t run its state government properly, which is perhaps why Florida wasn’t able to begin issuing REAL-ID until January 1, 2010 (i.e., more than 8 years prior to MA; source):

I can’t figure out why physical ID cards are required. Wouldn’t it make more sense to do retina scans and have your ID looked up based on that? I don’t see why this is different, from a privacy perspective, than forcing people to get a picture taken and a plastic card issue. Is it that, in theory, the government could scan our retinas from a distance and track everyone who walks around a city? Privacy-oriented folks could simply wear mirrored glasses.

Some data from “Real ID deadline is weeks away and most states aren’t fully compliant yet” (CBS):

As of last week, New Jersey had the lowest compliance rate in the nation — just 17% of its state-issued IDs are Real IDs. Pennsylvania reported 26%, while Washington and Maine tell CBS News they are at 27% compliance. New York reports 43% compliance, and California has reached nearly 55% compliance. [Maskachusetts was at 57%]

For comparison, the CBS article notes that Florida is “virtually 100% compliant” and Texas is at 98% (both scores achieved without either state taxing personal income).

Full post, including comments