RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.openthebooks.com

In the final month of the fiscal year, federal agencies scramble to spend what’s left in their annual budget.

Agencies fear that leaving excess funds might prompt Congress to appropriate less money the next year.To avoid this, agencies spend like crazy every September. We call it the “use-it-or-lose-it” phenomenon, and it’s all on the taxpayer dime. 

Our latest oversight report, which broke this morning on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, quantified the $97 billion federal agencies spent in the final month of fiscal year 2018. That’s a 39-percent increase from fiscal year 2015.These last-minute transactions purchased a range of services and products including fidget spinners, guns and ammunition, alcohol and lobster tail, CrossFit equipment, musical instruments, and more. For the next six days, we are making this report available to you for free. Download your free copy of our breaking report today.

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/contrary-to-claims-us-jobs-bust-not-a-fluke/

US payroll employment grew by just 20,000 in February, against a market consensus forecast of 170,000 growth. Administration officials pointed to the 3.4% growth in average hourly earnings as a sign of economic health, but low employment growth and higher wages are twin images of the same picture. US employment growth has been concentrated in labor-intensive, low wage sectors, and that is where hourly earnings have risen the fastest.

Higher wages are NOT leading to inflation, as the Phillips curve predicts, but to lower growth. Household budgets are tight and consumers balk at price increases. The unexpected slump in hiring in labor-intensive sectors is consistent with the unexpected slump in retail sales and personal spending in December.

I expect not a US recession but a slowdown in growth to the 1%-1.5% range, down from last year’s 3%. The US consumer, as I wrote yesterday, remains the world’s biggest macro risk.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/03/25/mark-janus-the-man-who-ended-compulsory-union-dues/

He asked the Supreme Court to acknowledge his First Amendment rights, and it did

An average guy, provoked enough, can accomplish things that are above average.

Mark Janus is such a guy. Provoked by what he believed was a bald violation of his First Amendment rights, he took action to see them protected. And he prevailed. Big time, as an average guy might say.

His name, italicized, will live on now in legal textbooks and amicus curiae footnotes, will be cited at length in law-school seminars and oral arguments, will be uttered with contempt in union headquarters, with respect in conservative gatherings. And it will be classified under “landmark.” Maybe even give birth to a phrase, “Janus rights.”

Last June, in Mark Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, commonly known as Janus v. AFSCME, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that public-sector unions may not automatically enroll workers as members and collect fees from them. Janus was a loss for labor. A big loss. And it was a major — even surprising, and far-reaching — victory for conservatives and First Amendment champions.

Mark Janus describes himself as “just an average guy, a middle-class person who goes to work every day.” And work is where this saga of jurisprudence, of constitutional rights, of modern-day politics and union power, all begins. A lifelong resident of Springfield, Ill., Janus, a down-to-earth civic-minded citizen (he is an Eagle Scout), graduated in 1975 from Illinois College, a business-administration major whose career path meandered. He worked for his dad’s beauty-supply company and then at the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, where his duties centered on economic-development small-business loans.

Janus soon returned to the private sector, as an accountant for a printing company and then in his own spiral-binding business, which he eventually sold. Then followed an encore as a government employee.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/the-tireless-ron-desantis/

He has led a burst of pro-market, limited-government reforms that are making Florida even greater.

The last time most Americans heard of Ron DeSantis, the former GOP congressman had edged past Mayor Andrew Gillum (D., Tallahassee) in their rough-and-tumble wrestling match for Florida’s governorship. After contested recounts in Broward and Palm Beach Counties, DeSantis, 40, prevailed over Gillum, 39, by a margin more svelte than Palm Beach — 49.6 percent to 49.2 percent. Among 8.1 million ballots cast, just 32,463 votes divided victor from vanquished.

Since his January 8 inauguration, DeSantis has done far more than rearrange the gubernatorial furniture. Indeed, he has led a burst of pro-market, limited-government reforms that are making Florida even greater.

• Most significantly, DeSantis replaced three Florida supreme court justices who were required to retire at age 75. His appointees — Barbara Lagoa, Robert J. Luck, and Carlos Muñiz — have shifted the court’s composition from four liberals and three conservatives to one liberal and six conservatives. This jump to the right should keep the Sunshine State’s top tribunal safe for constitutionalism.

• DeSantis pioneered Florida Deregathon — a one-day summit in which agency heads targeted red tape, especially in occupational licensing. While eye surgeons and airline pilots should certify their competence, why do nail polishers and boxing timekeepers need Tallahassee’s permission to work? Florida’s 1,200-hour training requirement for new barbers, for instance, stymies competition by boosting costs and headaches for new entrants.

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/08/35-key-people-involved-russia-hoax-need-investigated/

As their desperate search for collusion continues, Democrats want to interview 81 people. Try this list instead.

Funny how things change. The Washington Post couldn’t say a nice thing about congressional Republican efforts to investigate the Obama administration and FBI shenanigans that occurred before and after the 2016 election. That’s if they even covered these efforts at all.

But with Democrats controlling the House, and that legislative body’s subpoena power, the establishment media’s line has changed. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have just sent letters to 81 people, all associated with President Trump or the Russia probe, demanding answers on Russian election interference.

This is part of Democrats’ effort to continue their hunt for proof of Russia collusion—although they are already sure that Trump is guilty—as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation appears to be winding down. To cover these events, the Post’s Philip Bump wrote an article titled: “The 81 people and organizations just looped into the Trump probe—and why they were included.” Of course, the article is totally unquestioning of the House Democrats’ desired narrative and motivations.
Investigated, But Not for the Reasons Dems Give

It isn’t worth it to go through Bump’s whole article, but even the commentary about the first name on the list—Rinat Akhmetshin—omits glaring and important facts. Bump says Akhmetshin “joined his colleague Natalia Veselnitskaya, a lawyer linked to the Kremlin, at the June 9, 2016, meeting in Trump Tower predicated on providing information that would undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” But, Bump says, “the focus of the meeting instead reportedly focused on the Magnitsky Act—a law that resulted in sanctions on numerous prominent Russians.”