Lack of antitrust enforcement, price gouging, and consumer tolerance for “excessive skim” gives corporations “pricing power” (i.e, the ability to jack prices well beyond the rate of inflation.) It’s all about having customers with poor arithmetic skills.
{{ The U.S. stock market might not mind higher for longer interest rates, as long as the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy is restrictive enough to keep inflation under control.
Markets seem to be finding an “equilibrium” in a strong U.S. economy, after Treasury bond rates climbed Wednesday as traders adjusted to a hotter-than-forecast U.S. inflation report, according to BlackRock’s head of global macro positioning for fixed income, Russell Brownback.
The “breadth of the strength” in Wednesday’s core inflation data shows “companies do have pricing power,” with consumers willing to pay sticky prices for services, said Brownback in a phone interview. While inflation hovering around 3% is “too high for the Fed to be complacent,” he said “it’s not a terrible outcome for the private sector” as corporate earnings continue to grow. }}
They don’t. That’s why so many people are unhappy.
Just look at health care. Economists estimate that more than $10,000/yr of what the average family pays for health care in 2025 is a “poll tax”. (i.e., the price of all the inefficiencies and corruption in the system.)
I have been wondering. What is the difference between Trump cutting programs he finds wrong and Biden paying off student loans? Do you think that both might have overstepped their bounds?
There is a law, passed in 1974, against a POTUS refusing to spend money that has been appropriated for a stated purpose by Congress. This was the basis of an inquiry, a few years ago, about a refusal to spend appropriated funds for military aid for Ukraine.
USAID was established by Kennedy, as a part of the State Department, pursuant to a Congressionally passed act in 1961 to reorganize aid programs. USAID was made a separate department, by EO, pursuant to a Congressionally mandated reorganization in 1998.
That is how things are often done. Congress provides a broad outline, and the POTUS describes how he will execute the mandated actions in an EO.
Interesting.
I’ve often thought that government “actions” should have a sunset date - a date on which the action automatically ends.
At that point, the action would be re-evaluated.
The Constitution is “broad”, allowing decisions to be “massaged” to better fit society’s needs.
USSC decisions are “broad”, allowing mandates to be tailored.
This is sort of a “sunset clause”?
EOs are not hard wired edicts, but rather softer, allowing decisions to be tailored, or ended.
In a Constitution - Rule of Law based society, this seems useful.
That is the problem. It was created by Kennedy, not congress. If it would have been done correctly then in could not be abolished.
Sure and then a Potus can come and tear it all down. That is what happens. In fact before FDR, every time a President came in they seated all their own people in. That is why we had so much graft and bribery.
I will state that again, acts of Congress have be used to amend USAID - so it exists outside of any EO.
From the last amendment, again, signed by Trump:
(Sec. 6) Requires the President to ensure that programs carried out under the comprehensive strategy: (1) apply monitoring and evaluation methodologies to determine if programs and activities accomplish measurable improvements in literacy or other basic skills development; (2) include funding for both short- and long-term monitoring and evaluation; and (3) disaggregate as appropriate all data collected by age, gender, marital status, disability, and location.
(Sec. 7) Requires the President to submit to Congress an annual implementation report.
Congress passed a law, that the POTUS signed, that requires action on the part of the POTUS.
The POTUS is either violation statutory law, or the act is unconstitutional. I think the former is more likely.
Yes, there is potential for abuse. iirc, there was a case where Congress passed a law, but, when #41 wrote his execution EO, he described how he was going to ignore the law, rather than how he would implement it.
Of course, part of the problem is a lazy Congress, that leaves execution decisions up to the POTUS, or creates an administrative department to write appropriate, evidence based, regulations.
But then, some of those creatures in Congress probably have trouble tying their shoes.
We were talking about USAid not the Foreign Assistance Act. USAID is a government agency created by Potus which will not hold up under the Constitution.
You guys are mistaking a law with an agency. Show me where Congress actually enacted USAID into law as a governmental agency? I agree the money must be allocated as Congress appropriated but it does not have to be under USAID.
