Select Page

More on CON Laws

Certificate of Need laws, otherwise known as CON laws, are laws required in many states and some federal jurisdictions before proposed acquisitions, expansions, or creations of healthcare facilities are allowed. They are also absolutely ridiculous and entirely based entirely on cronyism. CON laws are irresponsible, damaging to the economy, and a prime example of an assault on economic liberty.

A recent report by Mercatus noted that “Nearly six decades ago, New York became the first state to enact a CON law for healthcare services. A decade later, the federal government mandated state implementation of CON laws in an effort to control healthcare costs, increase access to care, and improve quality. When early research suggested that CON laws were failing to meet these goals, the federal government repealed the mandate, but many states kept their CON laws on the books.”

The creation of CON laws themselves were supposedly based on some economic theory that restricting competition was going to be better for consumers, but in fact, it’s the opposite. This means that it’s cronyism, not economics that put these laws into place, and that it is cronyism, not economics, that is keeping these laws intact all these years.It’s worth noting that even the federal government realizes that CON laws are terrible. They ignore basic economic principles, that when you restrict competition you get higher, not lower prices. Even though the feds undid their CON laws, the states did not, which means that the states were bent on cronyism, which was the real reason for the laws in the first place. 

Ultimately, CON laws are unconstitutional because of their inherent economic favoritism. There’s no reason why some liberties should be treated differently than economic liberty and the right to earn a living should not be considered as fundamental as other rights. CON laws and their cronyism should be eliminated. 

Taylor Case: Systemic Police Reform not Systemic Racism

Everyone is aware of the tragic death of Breonna Taylor and its surrounding circumstances. But many  are calling for murder charges against the police officers who did the shooting, and are calling the event evidence of systemic racism. Both positions are ridiculously off base.

The grand jury did not charge any officers with the killing of Ms. Breonna Taylor in her home. The mainstream media would have you believe that this means that the grand jury was derelict in its duties. This skewed, biased view from the media is ignorant of the facts. The evidence clearly delineated that no laws were broken in connection with Ms Taylor’s shooting – the officers were acting within the legal confines of a warrant. The blame for this horrible outcome may well have been that the warrant was issued too easily and with terms that might create an unnecessarily dangerous situation. In fact, none of the actions by the police officers could be counted as homicide or murder nor could they be chalked up to systematic racism. Don’t let the media blind your vision as to where the real injustice is occurring: police warrants. 

As Americans who have agreed to live within a republican system of justice, we have no right to contest the grand jury’s decision. However, we do have every right to contest the laws that created this situation. Laws can be flawed and as thoughtful citizens of a republic we have every right to go through the proper channels and request a change of law where we see fit. If the problem is a too aggressive approach by law enforcement, maybe No-Knock warrants should not be allowable, or at least much more restricted. The way to fix the problems that gave rise to the Taylor tragedy is not societal upheaval over racial injustice, as the grand jury found no clear racial motivation involved in the case. No – the answer is criminal law reform, specifically in relation to laws surrounding warrants.  

The claim of systemic racism also has no basis.  The police entered the home due to a narcotics case with a legally valid warrant to do what was necessary within the home to complete their objectives. The wrongdoing in this case is rather coming from why policemen are busting in in the middle of the night – who gave the order to do that, why is that allowed, and so many other questions that the media should be focusing on. If anyone is really looking to see where the problem was in the Taylor case, it was not the policemen executing a warrant nor the boyfriend who was shooting back in self-defense. Nothing in all this reflects anything about race. The media and demonstrators were charging racism long before the details of the case were known. That alone is clear evidence of the dishonesty of those claiming racism was the cause.

Criminal law reform is where the focus must be if we are actually going to create a better America. Someone’s head should roll. Not the policemen but those who set the dominos in motion. Maybe it’s not a particular person that needs correction but a whole system created by a host of people. The system is the problem. Let’s focus on fixing that.

Rioting & Looting: Hypocrisy & Ignorance

Rioting and looting damage society and harm people. The recent protests on behalf of fighting  institutional racism wreak with unlawful violence and hypocrisy. Of course there are plenty of peaceful protesters who have caused no physical harm to property or other individuals. These are not at issue. Rather, the focus should be on the 15 people who lost their lives from the initial George Floyd protests, the countless businesses suffering stark physical damage to their properties (and despite ignorant assertions to the contrary, never fully covered by insurance), and the many families who had their livelihoods ripped to shreds because of looting. 

The violence that tore through Minneapolis and other cities in recent months is simply never justifiable.  The argument made by NPR’s interviewee, Vicky Osterweil, who takes on the Marxist theory that damage to property is neither violent nor unlawful is clearly nonsense. We live in the United States of America, where property and the endangerment of the security of our citizens are imbedded into every page of our Constitution. In fact the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments delineate this protection of property rights explicitly. Violence to another person’s property is unlawful.

Not only has the recent rioting and looting been unlawful but it has been hypocritical to the highest degree. One mob even attempted to assault Rand Paul and his wife in the name of “social justice.” Disgusting hypocrisy as Rand Paul is the very one who introduced the “Justice for Breonna Taylor Act.” Multiple Americans who died in the Minneapolis riots were minorities. The very Americans – including many of those in racial minorities – whom the violent protestors claim to be protecting were harmed by sky-high property recovery payments and most likely will be faced with spiked insurance premiums in the future. The emotional, physical, and economic freedoms that the rioters and looters claim as their banner are precisely what they themselves are destroying. 

If you want to go out and use your freedom of speech in a peaceful way, be my guest– it is your absolute right. If you intend on gathering together a mob full of hatred and hypocrisy, be ready for the consequences. We all ought to be raising our voices against the violent protestors as much as we are trying to solve the civil rights problems of our day. Shame on those who are hypocritically or ignorantly harming the well-being of our own American people. 

Let’s Talk About Kamala

With Kamala Harris as the Democrat’s Vice-Presidential candidate, it’s important to know that she has committed some rather egregious trespasses as a prosecutor. Just as disturbing is her fluctuating policy positions, calling into serious question her attempt to presently appear as a criminal justice reformer. Instead, Harris should be known for 1) her criminality and very poor judgement as a prosecutor 2) her hypocrisy, and 3) her opportunism. 

One of the biggest areas of concern is her prosecutorial misconduct. In many instances, she basically acted as a rogue prosecutor who should have possibly been charged criminally for her own actions in some of the following incidents:

*During a case in 2015 in which a prosecutor concocted a confession from the defendant, thereby leading to the case being dismissed, Harris’s Attorney General’s office appealed the dismissal. 

*During a case in 2015 in which a prosecutor in his case fabricated information to a jury relating to compensation to an informant, Harris’s Attorney General’s office fought the defendant’s appeal.

*During a case in which the entire Orange County DAs office was removed from the trial for failure to turn over evidence, Harris sought to block the removal.

*During a case in which a man was wrongfully imprisoned for 13 years, Harris’s office attempted to keep him locked up.

*After a crime lab technician purposefully tainted evidence in a vast amount of cases, Harris hid his actions while acting as a San Francisco DA.

Furthermore, Kamala Harris has worked on rebranding herself from previously being tough on crime to more sympathetic to justice warriors. For instance:

* Until 2014, Harris was against the legalization of marijuana while acting as the Attorney General of California.

* Harris declined to support criminal justice sentencing reforms that were on the ballot in California in 2012 and 2014.

* Harris’s office opposed an order to lessen the amount of prisoners in California, while supporting the use of prisoners as laborers due to the low cost.

* During her time serving as the Attorney General in California, Harris supported the dubious practice of civil asset forfeiture under the guise of going after drug operations.

Additionally, Harris was eager to be in the spotlight while moving up the political chain in California; two ridiculous incidents in particular come to mind.

*While running for US Senate, Harris’s office arrested the owners of Backpage, a site for classified sex workers, after publicly declaring that they “were protected from prosecution under federal speech law.” The case was promptly thrown out by a judge.

*While running for US Senate, Harris’s office went after for-profit colleges in California as part of an Obama initiative, while subsequently refusing to release any buyer of potential future liability– meaning anyone purchasing would be under constant threat of a lawsuit. Subsequently, no buyer would accept the terms.  The Corinthian college system therefore shuttered 23 schools, putting people out of work and education. 

Kamala Harris has repeatedly shown to have no moral compass. Her actions as a prosecutor should be alarming, as well as her hypocritical flip-flopping of positions. She has shown to be a mercurial political opportunist and has no business being a Vice-Presidential candidate. 

CNN Gets New York’s Future Wrong

As a lifelong New Yorker and fan of Jerry Seinfeld, I really wanted to like CNN’s article,“Jerry Seinfeld is right about New York’s future.”  The more I read it however, the more delusional it became until it was outright laughable.  The author, Jeffery Sachs, attempts to explain why New York will not fail and he’s right that the city has had tough times before. He’s correct that there will be a day of reckoning. But he is utterly incorrect that this reckoning is “between the superrich and the rest.”

Sachs has decided to lay the blame of the current state of New York City on the feet of the highest income earners, outright suggesting that the rich have gotten richer on the backs of those experiencing financial desperation and hunger due to the pandemic. It’s not the elected officials. It’s not the rioters. It’s not the bungled COVID-19 responses. It’s the billionaires. You can’t make this up:

NYC has more billionaires than any other city in the world — 111 in 2019. They like NYC, like the rest of us. They depend on NYC for their vast fortunes. And many have enjoyed astounding windfalls of wealth this year as frontline workers around them have died or faced eviction. The true challenge for New York City is not technology or even the pandemic. It is basic decency. A city survives and thrives as a living breathing social organism, one that acts together for the common good. The billionaires must be the ones paying higher taxes to keep the City’s schools, hospitals, public transport and social services running as NYC picks itself up from the crisis.”

What Jeffery Sach either fails to realize or purposefully omits is that the billionaires are already paying far in excess of any rational share of taxes to keep the City’s schools, hospitals, public transport and social services running as NYC picks itself up from the crisis.  Highest income earners pay the top rates, including 8.82% in state income taxes along with an extra 3.876% in NYC income taxes. Add to that the 40.8% marginal federal income tax rate  — and billionaires pay an income tax rate of over 53%! That’s 119 people paying 53% of their taxes for $8.5 million people and justice warriors want them to pay more? It’s not like these billionaires are using more services.

What’s really going on is that Jeffery Sachs is helping to shape the narrative that billionaires need to pay (more of) their fair share. Is it any coincidence that a new “Make Billionaires Pay” campaign by progressive lawmakers and activists is being debated right now in New York as some sort of a budget justice initiative? They want to add a new form of capital gains tax on those exceeding $1 billion in assets. 

A fundamental principle of our American heritage and history says that you don’t take something from somebody just because they have it. That is the approach of a crook. When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he famously replied, “because that’s where the money is.” Of course it’s a joke, but it seems like de Blasio didn’t get the joke. Crooks do that, not civil society. As Walter Williams said, “If one person has a right to something he did not earn, it means that another person does not have a right to something he did earn.” 

Rather than cutting spending and government services, these fiscally ignorant crusaders take the easy way out and blame the very people who provide the vast majority of the income NYC receives–and then subsequently squanders through bad policy and abysmal leadership. But they aren’t satisfied. They want more. And unlike Jerry Seinfeld, that’s just not funny.

NYC Public Schools are Incompetent

The‌ ‌NYC‌ ‌public‌ ‌schools‌ ‌are‌ ‌now‌ ‌supposed‌ ‌to‌ ‌begin‌ ‌opening‌ ‌on‌ ‌September‌ ‌29,‌ ‌but‌ ‌unions‌ ‌continue‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌apprehensive‌ ‌about‌ ‌in-person‌ ‌instruction.‌ ‌De‌ ‌Blasio‌ ‌already‌ ‌delayed‌ ‌school‌ ‌opening‌ ‌twice‌ ‌this‌ ‌year‌ ‌after‌ ‌ongoing‌ ‌threats‌ ‌of‌ ‌a‌ ‌teacher‌ ‌strike,‌ ‌‌citing‌ ‌“‌concerns‌ ‌raised‌ ‌by‌ ‌our‌ ‌labor‌ ‌partners.‌”‌‌ ‌On‌ ‌the‌ ‌other‌ ‌hand‌ ‌NYC‌ ‌charter‌ ‌and‌ ‌private‌ ‌schools‌ ‌have‌ ‌a‌ ‌variety‌ ‌of‌ ‌‌re-opening‌ ‌options‌‌ ‌other‌ ‌than‌ ‌virtual:‌ ‌from‌ ‌fully‌ ‌in-person‌ ‌to‌ ‌hybrid‌ ‌to‌ ‌outdoor‌ ‌classrooms.‌ ‌The‌ ‌contrast‌ ‌in‌ ‌competency‌ ‌is‌ ‌astounding.‌ ‌ ‌

The‌ ‌schools‌ ‌have‌ ‌been‌ ‌fully‌ ‌closed‌ ‌for‌ ‌six‌ ‌months‌ ‌because‌ ‌of‌ ‌COVID,‌ ‌and‌ ‌it’s‌ ‌not‌ ‌like‌ ‌educators‌ ‌didn’t‌ ‌know‌ ‌that‌ ‌their‌ ‌singular‌ ‌task‌ ‌of‌ ‌providing‌ ‌education‌ ‌to‌ ‌children‌ ‌would‌ ‌resume‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌fall.‌ ‌Nor‌ ‌are‌ ‌NYC‌ ‌public‌ ‌schools‌ ‌the‌ ‌only‌ ‌education‌ ‌system‌ ‌to‌ ‌face‌ ‌COVID.‌ ‌Virtually‌ ‌the‌ ‌entire‌ ‌country‌ ‌has‌ ‌had‌ ‌to‌ ‌come‌ ‌up‌ ‌with‌ ‌plans‌ ‌to‌ ‌safely‌ ‌re-open‌ ‌schools,‌ ‌and‌ ‌yet‌ ‌NYC‌ ‌public‌ ‌schools‌ ‌continue‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌unprepared‌ ‌and‌ ‌incompetent.‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

De‌ ‌Blasio‌ ‌has‌ ‌proven‌ ‌incapable‌ ‌of‌ ‌negotiating‌ ‌with‌ ‌the‌ ‌unions,‌ ‌and‌ ‌in‌ ‌doing‌ ‌so,‌ ‌he‌ ‌has‌ ‌let‌ ‌down‌ ‌students‌ ‌and‌ ‌parents.‌ ‌This‌ ‌inability‌ ‌to‌ ‌effectively‌ ‌execute‌ ‌a‌ ‌plan‌ ‌to‌ ‌help‌ ‌students‌ ‌learn‌ ‌is‌ ‌perhaps‌ ‌the‌ ‌strongest‌ ‌argument‌ ‌to‌ ‌date‌ ‌as‌ ‌to‌ ‌why‌ ‌charter‌ ‌and‌ ‌private‌ ‌schools‌ ‌should‌ ‌really‌ ‌be‌ ‌the‌ ‌models‌ ‌we‌ ‌move‌ ‌towards‌ ‌in‌ ‌order‌ ‌to‌ ‌provide‌ ‌quality‌ ‌21st‌ ‌century‌ ‌learning‌ ‌to‌ ‌our‌ ‌children.‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 

No, Tariffs Are Not The Way Forward

When I read commentary by people associated with the Club for Growth — known for promoting the rule of law, low taxes, small government, low tariffs, economic growth, etc. — I expect to find analysis consistent with their principles. Therefore, the recent CNS News article on 8/10, “American Manufacturers Come Back, Thanks to Trump,” took me completely by surprise because it was essentially the rantings of someone who is economically ignorant. Ken Blackwell, former elected official in Ohio and current member of the Board of Directors for the Club for Growth advocates for protectionism, pure and simple.

Blackwell praises how Trump instituted “strategic counter-tariffs on bad actors such as China to combat the effects of illegal and abusive trade practices that previously put companies like Whirlpool at an unfair disadvantage.” But this pro-tariff position runs counter to any competent economic analysis. Tariffs clearly and consistently hurt the consumer and taxpayer by driving costs up to everybody in amounts far in excess than any benefits given to those crony beneficiary companies. To call a tariff a “pro-growth economic policy” as Blackwell does is utterly ridiculous, and his entire article reads like a cheap campaign ad.  

Tariffs don’t “strengthen” American manufacturers as Blackwell believes; it is cronyism of the highest order. How the Club For Growth — as well as the National Taxpayers Union — can have someone on the board with views that are economically ignorant and destructive to our economy is beyond comprehension.

Support Black Lives Matter, But Not BLM

The concept of black lives matter is a reasonable expression of sentiment for people who are trying to ensure equality and equity. The problem is that the concept, “black lives matter” shares the same name as the legal entity “Black Lives Matter.” But Black Lives Matter is an anti-capitalist, anti-semitic organization whose policies are anything but helpful to black people as a whole. Indeed, they call themselves a “member based abolitionist organization,” focusing on abolishing “capitalism”, and supporting single parent households, according to their own BLM chapter website for Washington, DC.

I would wager that the vast majority of people expressing support for black lives matter (small letters) don’t actually support Black Lives Matter (capital letters). They support the general concept but wouldn’t have anything to do with the organization if actually presented with its current objectives and ideologies. The problem arises when people support that general concept, but then any monies raised as a gesture of solidarity go to the big organization because it’s easy — or else they think it is a benign group.

Continuing to use the “black lives matter” mantra gives credibility to Black Lives Matter; this is dangerous and almost as bad as supporting Black Lives Matter outright. The worst way to poison someone is to tell them something is good, but then tell them its poison only after they’ve consumed it. Same with “black lives matter.” It would be wise to adopt another slogan that shows solidarity with the plight of black Americans without supporting and funding the anti-capitalist, anti-family, anti-police Black Lives Matters movement.

Separation of Church and State

There is nothing in our Constitution about the “separation of church and state.” This phrase is often wrongly used as shorthand for the Establishment clause found in the first amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What that plainly states is that the government will not prefer or establish one religion over another or restrict the practice of religion. Many people who use the phrase “separation of church and state” interpret it to mean the opposite, that the Constitution requires a separation of church and state. But that is simply untrue. 

Thus, if the government gives money to a group, such as private schools, it cannot discriminate against a particular school just because it is religious.  The recent SCOTUS decision in Espinoza v Montana case is a clear confirmation of that important understanding.

Looting and Lawsuits

Everyone remembers ACORN, the community organizing group that engaged in voter fraud and operational irregularities (among other things). Their shadiness was brought to light in 2009 and became the subject of multiple investigations and civil lawsuits which inevitably bankrupted the organization. This was the right thing to happen.

Civil lawsuits may very well be the key to getting the looters and rioters under control in the absence of government leadership. Don’t focus on arresting the perpetrator; if someone’s property is damaged, police cars are destroyed, businesses are vandalized, these acts should result in lawsuits against the agitators. But here’s the key: if they are working for or encouraged by an organization (such as Black Lives Matter or Antifa, for example), you sue the organization as well. Of course the organization can say that they didn’t tell the rioters to do any damage, but then you have rioters who will not be held liable for their actions and being hung out to dry by their organizations, so they’ll make a deal. That’s how you put them out of business.

The agitators should be held criminally liable, but whether they are or aren’t, they should be sued. Any lawsuits, therefore, must be civil, not criminal. Maybe you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, but you’ll have plenty of evidence for a civil suit. Once people realize that if these do these egregious actions and will be held liable and financially responsible, maybe they’ll think twice about inflicting harm on another person or property.