by | BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY, POLITICS
I was annoyed to read an article as ridiculous as Alan Blinder’s “Will Congress Ever Break the Covid Relief Standoff?” in which Blinder puts the blame on Senate Republicans. In fact, the entire premise of the article is that “Senate Republicans resist passing a new bill, even though it’s needed and politically expedient.” But this is simply untrue, and shows the great lengths to which Blinder omits key facts in order to advance the narrative that the Republicans are at fault.
A few days ago, Senate Democrats declined to consider a $500 billion COVID package put forth by Senate Republicans. 52 Republicans (all except Rand Paul) voted to advance the bill, but without one single Democrat vote, the measure died. According to the rules of the Senate, having a majority that included nearly 100% of the Republicans isn’t enough to pass the bill; by invoking cloture (requiring 50 votes to override) they prevented the bill from even being debated. But did Blinder mention this at all in his article? Absolutely not. Instead, he describes how the Senate Republicans “resisted” passing a new bill, because not caving to the $3 trillion relief package offered by the Democrats is somehow an act of resistence.
Blinder continues this ridiculous idea, saying “progress has been blocked” by McConnell. How? The Democrat $3 trillion relief package version (the Heroes Act) contained “items that Republican abhor,” and this somehow makes it the Republican’s fault? And yet, in the very same paragraph, Blinder describes how the Heroes Act itself “was just an opening bid, which House Democrats never expected Senate Republicans to embrace.” This brings to mind two questions: 1) why are the Democrats crafting a bill that they willfully acknowledge they didn’t expect to pass; and 2) why are the Democrats given a free pass to craft a bill (they don’t expect to pass) at the high end of the spending spectrum, but when the Republicans craft a bill at the low end of the spending spectrum, it’s considered a “political stunt.”
Blaming Republicans for causing problems (resisting) because their bill, which the Democrats described as “emaciated,” did not have the right kind of Democrat spending, is outrageous. Such nonsensical hypocrisy and patent lies should not be tolerated.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY
The GOP Senate released its own version of a tax reform plan with a few differences from the House version. The most notable example is a one-year delay on cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% — meaning that the tax change would not take affect until 2019.
Their rationale is that the cost of the marginal cut would save $100 billion in costs. One drawback, however, is that companies would likely just sit and wait to make major changes and business decisions. This would certainly delay economic recovery.
In another departure from the House, the Senate bill would eliminate the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), a move that is positive, yet affects states with high taxes. This was originally in the House bill, but after pushback from places such as New York, California, and other high-tax states, the House modified the deduction to allow a cap of $10,000. This full elimination is really what needs to happen; it puts all taxpayers around the country on a level playing field, especially if it helps to reduce federal tax rates across the board.
The House and Senate also differ in the estate tax. While the House has a plan to repeal the estate tax entirely by 2024, the Senate plan does not. Instead, it will only target a select few taxpayers, by doubling the size of estates that are exempt from being taxed. The estate tax is a punitive tax and really should be eliminated; the House form is much better.
Finally, the Senate bill would lower the top marginal rate by 1%, to 38.5%. While a slight reduction is better than none, neither bill version goes far enough. The final tax reform plan must include a return to at least the Bush tax cut rates (35%) if Congress is serious about really jump-starting the economy.
It will be interesting to see what the final form takes. A true tax reform bill, like the IRC code reforms of 1986, are long overdue. The taxpayer deserves a cleaner, more streamlined tax code.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS
On Monday, the Department of Education announced student loan debt forgiveness for students at the now-closed Corinthian College system in California. At the end of April, the Department of Education slapped the for-profit college group with $30 million in fines for allegedly misrepresenting post-graduation job prospects and/or placement rates to some 900 students in 12 schools since 2007. Read the letter here.
Never mind that in 2010 (a year for which I have numbers), 110,000 students were enrolled in 100 schools in their system. That means the total transgressions represent less than 1% of the entire school population. And yet, the DoE decided that 40,000 students in the shuttered college system were eligible for immediate loan forgiveness for Corinthian’s misdeeds; all the students need to do is fill out a form, and their loan will be covered. By taxpayers, to the tune of an estimated $500 million dollars.
But why? That’s where it gets interesting.
Enter Kamala Harris. She’s the current Attorney General in California and she’s running for retiring Senator Barbara Boxer’s seat. Harris worked in conjunction with the Department of Education specifically targeting the Corinthian College system. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Last summer the Education Department began to drive Corinthian out of business by choking off federal student aid for supposedly stonewalling exhaustive document requests. The Department claimed to be investigating whether Corinthian misrepresented job placement rates as California Attorney General Kamala Harris alleged in a lawsuit.”
Corinthian agreed to turn over their education centers to other non-profits, but Kamala Harris refused to release any buyer of potential future liability, meaning anyone purchasing would be under constant threat of a lawsuit. Last November, “the nonprofit Education Credit Management Corporation (ECMC) “agreed to buy more than 50 Corinthian campuses for $24 million plus $17.25 million in protection money to the feds for a release from liability. But ECMC passed up Corinthian’s 23 schools in California because Ms. Harris wouldn’t quit.” The alternative to having no buyer for these particular schools would ultimately be to shut them down.
It was in April 2015 that Corinthian was slapped with the $30 million fine, which effectively drove the final nail in the coffin of the remaining schools because no one in their right mind would shoulder the liability. As for the hefty penalty, “The Department assessed the maximum fine of $35,000 per regulatory violation, which its bureaucrats count as each student that was improperly counted.” By the end of the month, all the rest of the schools indeed closed, throwing out of employment and school, thousands of people.
For those affected, “to mitigate the political damage, DoE [deputized] financial aid counselors to help Corinthian’s student refugees. Yet most community colleges don’t offer Corinthian’s vocational programs and flexible schedules, and many for-profits don’t accept Corinthian’s credits. Ms. Harris and the feds have also made clear they intend to continue their persecution of for-profits, so students could enroll in another political target.” How generous of them.
What makes this whole affair particularly odious is that that “the federal government doesn’t specify how for-profits calculate their job placement rates. States and accrediting agencies have disparate and often vague rules, which notably don’t apply to nonprofit and public colleges.” Thus, Corinthian Colleges was really just a part of the larger assault on for-profit colleges by the Obama Administration, all tied to his new “Gainful Employment” rules. You can read the regulations released last October.
Part of this new regulation change deals with colleges and federal aid. “In particular, Obama intends to change the parameters of what’s known as the “90-10 Rule”—a federal law that bars these schools from receiving more than 90 percent of their revenues through federal student aid, including loans and grants.” The affect of these changes on the for-profit college system has been noted by Forbes. Though the regulations don’t actually take affect until July 1, 2015, it appears Corinthian was a ripe target. What’s more, the Department of Education found a ready and willing partner in Kamala Harris, who just happens to be running for a very important Senate seat in California.
On can debate the merits of the for-profit college system, but that would be fodder for another post. The fact remains that certainly, the generous student loan forgiveness/bailout will resonate with these 40,000 young, impressionable voters who suddenly got their college costs covered by someone else, even if they weren’t an actual victim of alleged “misrepresentation”. Will there soon be another for-profit college chain shut down and subsequent loan bailout by the Feds in another important election state?
by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The vote to confirm Loretta Lynch might happen as early as this week. The process has been stretched out under the auspices of being contingent on passing a human trafficking bill in the Senate, but it is just as likely that the vote was put quietly on hold in a “logjam” until 51 votes were clinched for certain. It has been a struggle to get enough votes throughout the process, with the 51 vote only been secured at the beginning of April. 5 Senate Republicans that were needed are: Sens. Orrin Hatch (Utah), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.) — all members of the Judiciary Committee — and moderate Sens. Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Susan Collins (Maine).
Lynch’s opponents have been painted as racist and anti-immigrant. But the most abhorrent reason for nominating Lynch is truly in the realm of civil rights, with the media turning a blind eye to her antics, specifically related to civil asset forfeiture.
The most ironic about the matter is that “Ten civil and human rights organizations, including the National Action Network, which is headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton, the League of United Latin American Citizens and the NAACP wrote a letter to McConnell [last] Friday urging a vote on Lynch.
A couple of months ago, I wrote an open letter decrying the nomination of Loretta Lynch and spelled out her egregious record on the issue of civil rights, which should be chilling for anyone considering her nomination. I will repost it here below, since the media has failed to give any real scrutiny to her time in New York.
The nomination of Loretta Lynch to the position of Attorney General is before you. Although her intelligence, experience, and poise may appear to make her a superb candidate, it is clear now that she would be an extremely poor – even dangerous — choice due to her strong position on civil asset forfeiture.
The need to safeguard civil liberties and individual rights is a priority for all Americans. Do you really want to consider confirming a person who has been exceedingly proud of her record of taking property without due process…of practicing guilty until proven innocent? This is a very serious issue, not to be taken lightly.
Civil asset forfeiture is a particularly egregious abuse of power, allowing the government to seize property and cash if it merely suspects wrongdoing, even with no evidence and no charging of a crime.
Loretta Lynch was particularly lucrative in this regard as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Between 2011 and 2013, the forfeiture operations under her management netted more than $113 million in civil actions. Lynch’s division was among the top in the country for its collections. But this is not something to be proud of.
In one particularly appalling case, Loretta Lynch’s office seized nearly a half-million dollars from two businessman in 2012 and sat on it for more than two years without a court hearing or appearance before a judge. In fact, no crime had been committed. These men were denied due process and deprived of their assets without warning or criminal charges. Lynch suddenly returned the money just weeks ago on January 20, 2015 — on the eve of her confirmation hearings, having found no wrongdoing by the men either.
During Lynch’s confirmation hearing testimony pertaining to civil asset forfeiture, Lynch stated that “civil and criminal forfeiture are very important tools of the Department of Justice as well as our state and local counterparts.” She further argued that forfeiture is “ done pursuant to court order, and I believe the protections are there.” This is, in fact, not true. In the case mentioned above, there was not only no court order, but also no hearing at any time in nearly three years. That is unconscionable. And this is only one of many similar, well-documented, incidents.
The problem of civil asset forfeiture is that the government can confiscate money or property under the mere suspicion of a crime without ever actually charging someone. The person must prove his innocence to reclaim what was seized, which is a burden of time and money and readily seems to go against our staunch American belief of “innocent until proven guilty.” What’s more, besides the obvious threat to civil liberties, those most likely to be victims are poor and minority citizens.
Thankfully, in recent months, individuals and organizations on both sides of the political aisle have come together to demand reform to this unjust practice. Bipartisan legislation has been proposed in Congress; groups ranging from the Heritage Foundation to the American Civil Liberties Union have been increasingly critical of civil asset forfeiture practices. Even Eric Holder has called for changes and the IRS has recently and publicly pledged to reduce its involvement as well.
Loretta Lynch and her record on civil asset forfeiture represents the worst of this “tool for law enforcement”. A vote for her confirmation is a vote you will never be able to walk back. Do you really want to confirm a person who is so deeply committed to civil asset forfeiture at the very same time in America that there is strong bipartisan support for protecting civil liberties and walking back the laws pertaining to this practice? It makes no sense to proceed down this path.
Loretta Lynch may arguably be the most successful forfeiture agent in government today. This is not a positive quality for an Attorney General. The practice is abusive and her tactics even more so. Voting to confirm a person with such an atrocious civil liberties record is certain to cause problems for you down the road when you have to answer for your support. Therefore, on behalf of all Americans, I urge you to vote no for her confirmation.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS, TAXES
What is so special about April 29, 2009?
It’s the last time Congress passed a budget. 1000 days later, we are operating without any plan. Oh, the delicious irony that it is today… I can’t wait to hear about it during the State of the Union tonight, right? Just like last year’s State of the Union; the budget Obama tried to pass shortly thereafter, modeled on the ideas espoused during his speech, failed 97-0. It was so outrageous, not one Senator of either party would put his name to it.
I’ve read some recent articles about the last 1000 days. Human Events had some worthwhile observations:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said it would be “foolish” to have a budget.
“There’s no need to have a Democratic budget in my opinion,” Reid said in a May interview with the Los Angeles Times. “It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage.”
The breakdown in the Senate came after Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), chairman of the Budget Committee, failed to get a consensus among panel Democrats last year on any plan that was proposed to the caucus.
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep Sandy Adams penned a short piece about Congressional budget activity, (or lack thereof)
The previous Democrat-led Congress had ample time to do so. With President Obama in theWhite House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had the power to implement any budget they chose. Unfortunately, they punted on their responsibilities, choosing to pass legislation creating a national energy tax and an unpopular health-care law instead.
And finally, the Heritage Foundation put forth their list of facts about our nation’s budget and America’s money:
- The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009.
- Since that date, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt.
- As of January 20, the outstanding public debt stands at $15,240,174,635,409.
- Interest payments on the debt are now more than $200 billion per year.
- President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0. (And that budget was no prize—according to the Congressional Budget Office, that proposal never had an annual deficit of less than $748 billion, would double the national debt in 10 years and would see annual interest payments approach $1 trillion per year.)
- The Senate rejected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R–WI) budget by 57–40 in May 2011, with no Democrats voting for it.
- In FY2011, Washington spent $3.6 trillion. Compare that to the last time the budget was balanced in 2001, when Washington spent $1.8 trillion ($2.1 trillion when you adjust for inflation).
- Entitlement spending will more than double by 2050. That includes spending on Medicare, Medicaid and the Obamacare subsidy program, and Social Security. Total spending on federal health care programs will triple.
- By 2050, the national debt is set to hit 344 percent of Gross Domestic Product.
- Taxes paid per household have risen dramatically, hitting $18,400 in 2010 (compared with $11,295 in 1965). If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire and more middle-class Americans are required to pay the alternative minimum tax (AMT), taxes will reach unprecedented levels.
- Federal spending per household is skyrocketing. Since 1965, spending per household has grown by nearly 162 percent, from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. From 2010 to 2021, it is projected to rise to $35,773, a 22 percent increase.
So there you have it. We stopped having a budget with a Democrat in the White House, a Democrat-controlled Senate, and with a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. 1000 days ago. So how come they aren’t talking about it?
Update: The Hill is reporting that some Republicans will be sporting “1000 days” buttons to mark the 1000 days of ineptitude
