RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/huzzah-a-student-loan-plaintiff-frank-garrison-lawsuit-biden-pacific-legal-foundation-11664311394?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

The Biden Administration has to know it lacks the authority to unilaterally cancel a half-trillion dollars in student debt, but it may have calculated that no one could demonstrate the injury needed to bring a legal challenge. Well, maybe someone can.

An Indiana borrower on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit to block the President’s student loan write-off. He makes a strong case that he is harmed by the loan cancellation and that it’s illegal. Federal courts only hear cases and controversies. As a threshold matter, plaintiffs must show that they have suffered a concrete and particular injury.

Individual taxpayers aren’t directly harmed by the write-off, even if they will ultimately bear the cost. The cancellation is unfair to Americans who repaid their loans or didn’t go to college, but they haven’t suffered a concrete injury. Frank Garrison argues he will be harmed owing to quirks in federal loan repayment plans and Indiana tax law.

Mr. Garrison is enrolled in the federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which limits his monthly payments to a share of his income and discharges the remaining debt after 10 years of payments. The President’s loan forgiveness will immediately cancel $20,000 in debt. But this won’t reduce his monthly payments since they are already capped.

However, it will require him to pay more than $1,000 in state tax on the canceled debt this year. Indiana doesn’t tax Public Service Loan Forgiveness, so he wouldn’t face a state tax liability several years from now. Thus he won’t receive an “additional benefit from the cancellation—just a one-time additional penalty,” according to his suit.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-thinks-stock-market-doesnt-matter-heres-what-he-doesnt-get

Stock markets are crashing, but Joe Biden doesn’t care.

The cheery president is oblivious, even though U.S. investors have lost $7.6 trillion since he took office and we are now officially in a bear market.

Politico reports that Biden wants to hit the road, eager to tout his economic achievements and confident that the “nation’s outlook is brightening.”

This, as economists from Bank of America, among many others, are predicting a recession in 2023 and rising unemployment thanks to the Federal Reserve’s efforts to combat inflation. And, as prominent companies like FedEx and GE confirm such gloomy forecasts by warning more trouble lies ahead.

But then this is the same clueless president who hosted an “Inflation Reduction Party” featuring James Taylor crooning about drug addiction (???) the same day a bad inflation read caused the Dow to plunge 1,200 points – one of the worst drops this year.

Asked recently about the slide in share prices, Biden said, “The stock market doesn’t necessarily reflect the state of the economy, as you well know. And the economy is still strong.” Actually, the economy shrank during the past two quarters, the housing market is in freefall and an inverted yield curve is flashing red.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/david-malpasss-lesson-for-gop-candidates-world-bank-al-gore-climate-change-gotcha-question-republicans-scientist-11664214207?mod=opinion_lead_pos10

World Bank President David Malpass committed a horrible environmental crime last Tuesday. When asked about his views on climate change, he said, “I’m not a scientist.”

The saga began earlier when Al Gore called Mr. Malpass a “climate denier” and urged President Biden to fire him. It isn’t clear why Mr. Gore was so incensed by Mr. Malpass. Whatever his personal beliefs, the World Bank under Mr. Malpass’s leadership has given a record $31.7 billion in fiscal 2022 to “climate-related” initiatives.

When a reporter prodded Mr. Malpass about the comment hours later, he said it was “very odd” and declined to discuss his climate views with his words about not being a scientist.

This seeming nonevent developed into front-page news at the New York Times. Calls for Mr. Malpass’s resignation began, including from the White House, despite Mr. Malpass subsequently clarifying that he does believe greenhouse gases cause warming. One wonders where this outrage was when Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson declined to define the word “woman” in her confirmation hearings, pleading, “I’m not a biologist.”

Mr. Malpass has refused to resign, and why should he? He spoke the truth. He isn’t a scientist. He’s an economist, hence his appointment to the World Bank by President Trump. What he said about greenhouse gases is also true, and probably the one thing all sides can agree on in the climate debate. It’s also the end of what science clearly says about global warming. Anything else you hear is guesswork, if not fear-mongering.

But the hysterical reaction to Mr. Malpass’s statement is also an important lesson for Republican candidates. They’re likely to get this sort of “gotcha” question on climate and “I am not a scientist” and similar disavowals of expertise, knowledge and opinion aren’t good answers, true as they may be. They instantly make one sound defensive and don’t defuse the situation.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-permitting-bills-poison-pill-joe-manchin-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-senate-11664226775?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

The Senate may vote as early as Tuesday on Joe Manchin’s permitting reform bill, and the West Virginian says Republicans should accept incremental progress rather than nothing. But the main problem isn’t that his changes are too modest, though they are. Some of them would do tangible harm to U.S. energy security and constitutional federalism.

Though it’s received little attention, one section would rewrite how transmission lines are permitted, and not for the better. The 1935 Federal Power Act preserved state authority over transmission-line permits while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) decides how to allocate costs.

A transmission line that crosses a state affects its utility planning. Yet states may disagree over whose citizens should pay for it. FERC today apportions the costs by economic and reliability benefits. If a line reduces electricity prices in Michigan, its citizens shoulder some of the cost. The Manchin bill would disrupt this delicate federal-state balance.

It gives FERC the power to permit an interstate transmission line if the Energy Secretary says it promotes “national energy policy” or the ability of “intermittent energy to connect to the electric grid.” FERC could override states and approve a line merely because it reduces CO2 emissions or encourages renewable power.

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Accusations of “threats to democracy,” are being tossed around with the abandon of rolls being thrown at a Drones Club dinner. This has especially been true from the “anointed” left toward their conservative opponents. They see a fascist behind every Republican. “With…democracy itself in the balance…” wrote Sara Burnett and John Hanna of the Associated Press in a recent article on Governor’s races taking on new prominence. CNN’s S.E. (Sarah Elizabeth) Cupp recently wrote of the ascendancy of right wing nationalism and “in some cases fascism,” in which she grouped Donald Trump with Jair Bolsonaro and Viktor Orban, and Liz Truss with Marine Le Pen. Hillary Clinton recently compared a Trump campaign event in Ohio to a Nazi rally, I guess “deplorables” wasn’t strong enough.

Catchy slogans are ubiquitous in politics. Most, unsurprisingly, have a positive slant: “Why not the best?” – Carter in ’76; “Morning in America!” – Reagan in ’80. A few carry an accusatory tone: “It’s the economy, stupid!” – Clinton in ‘92. Others are egotistical: “We are the ones we have been waiting for!” – Obama in 2008. And then there was Trump’s upbeat slogan in 2016, “Make America great again,” which Democrats, using the acronym “MAGA,” have turned into a pejorative in 2022.

Like the Left’s call for net-zero-emissions (which in reality is a regressive tax), the words “Republicans represent a threat to democracy” serve as a red herring, to detract from real issues, like inflation, the economy, immigration, jobs, crime, school choice, and the student mental health crisis. Yet democracy is fragile, so should be watched and handled with care. Our Constitution provides for a government based on the rule of law, with checks and balances cast in three co-equal branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The purpose – to make it difficult for any individual to wrest control. As early as September 1787, Benjamin Franklin allegedly responded to a query about the new government, that it was “a Republic, if you can keep it.”  In the same year, in “Federalist 26,” Alexander Hamilton addressed the debate between legislative power and individual liberty. In the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville saw the threat of tyranny from unchecked demands of individuals and groups. A Civil War was fought in the early 1860s to combat slavery, but also to preserve the union. The American political system is not supposed to be efficient. It is designed for debate and collaboration, aimed at reaching a consensus. While advocacy is expected from political parties, constraints on government are critical for continued individual liberty.