by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, MEDIA
The Wall Street Journal has a feature called “Notes on the News” which is supposed to “walk you through the biggest news stories of the week.” Unfortunately, their writer, Tyler Blint-Welsh is so inept and full of bias that he misses key points in his summaries to the detriment of WSJ readers.
For instance, on July 26, while writing about federal agents being sent to US cities, he describes how federal officers have been patrolling Portland, Oregon since July 2, but utterly leaves out the fact that violence in Portland has been going on for much longer; many people and property have been injured, yet he ignores that fact in order to focus on the presence of federal authorities. He further mishandles the scenario by describing the use of force on protesters as “apparently without provocation.” However, anyone watching the videos of the circumstances can’t possibly make the assumption of apparent provocation; doing so is utterly inappropriate and dishonest. The protesters were trying to set the courthouse on fire with people in it, but he completely omits that from his analysis. He also chooses not to include the fact that the federal agents were there to protect the federal buildings that the mayor refused to protect but managed to mention that the mayor was tear-gassed by federal agents. The lopsided point-of-view is ridiculous.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t end there. Blint-Welsh also analyzes the situation with unemployment benefits which face an expiration at the end of the month, saying “that lack of progress could jeopardize the $600 weekly unemployment supplement that millions of Americans have been relying on since the pandemic triggered record numbers of jobless claims.” He further describes how the Democrats want to extend the $600 until January 2021 while noting that the Republicans want to reduce the benefit amount. However, he conveniently leaves out the fact that the reason the Republicans want to cut back payments is because a large number of recipients are paying more to stay home than if they went to work — which is hampering economic recovery. Forget about the fact that it shouldn’t be so readily available to collect because jobs are available. The extension that the Democrats want is unconscionable but he’s making it seem like the Democrat position is reasonable and that the Republicans are selfish and cold-hearted.
It’s hard to imagine that Blint-Welsh is so uninformed as to not know what’s actually going on, so the only conclusion is that he is intentionally distorting these situations. That is egregious for both the integrity of the Wall Street Journal and those who have to read his diatribes.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, POLITICS
New York Governor Cuomo continues his crusade for a state bailout by claiming that New York is a “donor state” and therefore entitled to more federal funds. By this, he means that New York gives more in tax revenue to Washington than it gets back. However, the “donor state” mantra and his calculations making that claim are incorrect.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “New York is No ‘Donor’ State,” did a thorough breakdown on how to calculate and account for federal funds in order to better understand the ebb and flow of dollars in and out of states. In this, it showed that New York really isn’t a donor state at all. It seems that various “donor state” claims tend to cling to a Rockefeller Institute report published in 2017 that erroneously calculated what states receive. For instance, it counted both food stamps and servicemen’s paychecks as federal subsidies when that’s clearly not the case. Likewise, it omitted the federal subsidization of municipal debt issuance and also didn’t account for the implicit socialization of their unfunded pensions and postemployment benefits. Thus, in reality, New York is one of several high-tax blue states that “are net ‘receivers’ of federal funds.” The aforementioned article is a definitely worthwhile read.
But even if the donor state claim were true to some degree, it’s still a weak argument for a bailout. Any notable imbalances occur for several reasons that Cuomo refuses to even consider. For instance, the federal tax code is very progressive and New Yorkers have high incomes. Likewise, New York receives relatively less money in the form of federal contracts and federal employee wages. This is logically caused by the fact that New York has made itself such a terrible place to do business (including sky-high costs and ridiculously burdensome regulation and taxes) that it can’t compete for these projects. Furthermore, the flow of New York taxpayer money to Washington and back has virtually nothing to do with why the New York government can’t balance its budget due to overspending. The government is not the taxpayer. The states send no money to Washington – their earners do.
In other words, it’s not that the government is being shortchanged. The state government isn’t hurt by this at all. The taxpayers of New York are the ones hurt by perennial fiscal mismanagement and it is a sham to request a bailout under the guise of being a donor state.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, LAW, POTUS, TRUMP
It’s really sad that Mitt Romney went off the deep end with regard to the commuting of Roger Stone’s sentence. Trump’s timing was definitely politically stupid and over the top. However, presidential pardons and commutations are often self-serving and inexplicable. Although Roger Stone was convicted of a relatively minor infraction of lying about something that was not of major significance, even that conviction was suspect because of clearly stated bias of the lead juror that should have led to a new trial. As such, his commutation was certainly less appalling compared to other pardons sometimes involving really horrific human beings.
Therefore, it is ridiculous that Mitt Romney declared Stone’s commutation was “unprecedented, historic corruption.” This is so absolutely wrong and incompetent that it could only be attributed the most vile case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It seems that Mitt Romney either doesn’t know his history or is flat-out ignoring the fact that Stone’s commutation is one of a long line of Presidents using their Constitutional powers of pardon to benefit friends. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon pardoned Jimmy Hoffa. Bill Clinton pardoned his brother Roger Clinton and Marc Rich, the “fugitive financier.” Clinton also commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, the terrorists responsible for more than 130 bombings spanning several years against the wishes of Congress. Likewise, Obama commuted the sentence of one of the FALN masterminds, Oscar Lopez Rivera, who rejected the original commutation in 1999. Surely these pale in comparison to Roger Stone? As it is, Stone remains a convicted felon because he did not receive a full presidential pardon so he is not completely off the hook.
Romney’s assertions are completely unfounded and shows that his judgement continues to be unreliable. His response was so off the charts that it should make everyone doubt the credibility of anything that he says.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, HYPOCRISY, MEDIA, POLITICS
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.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, EDUCATION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, SCOTUS
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.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FED, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, POTUS, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES, TRUMP
Are we past the tipping point for economic reform? I would argue that Obama’s budgets and spending accelerated the deficits beyond repair. Some people will go back to Reagan and say that the deficit and the debt ballooned during the Reagan Administration and they will blame it on his tax cuts. But what is actually true is that the tax cuts generated a large increase in revenue, and the only reason why he had deficits was that the Democrat-led Congress increased spending even over the increased revenue. The same thing happened with the Bush tax cuts which were very pro-growth; the revenue went up sharply, but spending went up even faster. But at this point the debt was still manageable.
Then you come to Obama. At the beginning of his administration, we had the deep recession -which arguably could have benefited by one year of stimulus. The concept of a stimulus is supposed to be a one-off event. In other words, you engage in big one-time expenditures to get the economy on track and then spending goes back to previous levels as the recovery occurs. The problem is that Obama didn’t put things in for just one year. He did long term things, like food stamps, teacher’s compensation, etc., knowing full well that once put into effect they could not easily be withdrawn. And it was pretty clearly his intent all along, for political reasons, to bake them into the budget. So now when we started to have a recovery, you had ballooning deficits — even with a growing economy. Then by the time Trump was elected, the locked-in recurring spending with its locked-in annual increases made the deficit – and the debt – almost impossible to rein in.
Now we have the pandemic and we have no place to go. There’s no surplus to go to the deficit. Millions of Americans are unexpectedly unemployed, which means they’re not paying into Social Security. At the same time, we see older workers who have lost their jobs choose to draw their benefits as soon as they become eligible. This will speed up the insolvency train. But then Trump did something that was very stupid (though his political motivation is clear). He said that entitlements are off the table. If entitlement reform is off the table at this point, we’re headed to bankruptcy.
We’ve been talking about the coming insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare programs for many, many years now and Congress has done nothing to stave off the inevitable. Couple that with Obama budgets, Trump’s lack of action, and the pandemic, and the deficits are even larger now. Anyone seriously looking at the situation knows that absent a major change to entitlements, the mandated annual increases, both because of cost of living adjustments and demographics, will bankrupt both programs in the next ten to fifteen years. It’s very safe to say that absent major entitlement reform, we’re basically past the tipping point.
by | CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, LAW, QUICKLY NOTED
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.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, POLITICS
I am a long-term supporter of the Manhattan Institute and participate in their events and webcasts regularly. Heather MacDonald, Steve Malanga, and Nicole Gelinas are three of my favorite people. But Michael Hendrix seriously dropped the ball as moderator of the discussion on “Planning for the City’s Reopening” several weeks ago. Given the current pandemic and civil unrest, exploring how business can reopen is a laudable topic; however, the actual discussion was immensely disappointing. He allowed it to simply ignore the real reasons for the problems the City now faces with regard to “reopening”.
For instance, during the question on how we were going to reopen the city, much of the conversation had to do with needing to do more with affordable housing, and needing more help from the city government. He of course knows that this has nothing to do with the “reopening”. The problem long preceded COVID, and doesn’t need the government to fix it. Government actions – zoning, land use, overburdening businesses and building regulations leading to ridiculously high costs – are the cause of lack of affordable housing, and without reversing those actual issues, there is no solution.
Additionally, the “racial crisis” was a significant topic. He ignored any response regarding whether this was true and/or meaningful since the City has been run by extraordinarily liberal, non-racist leaders for generations, including full representation of the minority community. Can racial bias then really be a thing in New York City? Also in every single major city in which there has been extensive looting and rioting, the cities have been in the hands of minorities and liberals for the past 50 years. Yet he as the moderator didn’t even allow for this perspective to come up.
Furthermore, there was absolutely no discussion about the rioters and looters destroying businesses; the conversation only focused on police brutality. Though police brutality may be a problem, is it really a factor in the reopening after COVID? For a panel exploring the city and businesses, it was egregious that he virtually ignored the very real problem: businesses that have been destroyed by looters and rioters are being ignored by law enforcement, making businesses hesitant to invest in reopening and insurers hesitant in providing insurance at affordable rates.
Another topic was education, but there was no mention about charter schools and how they fit into the equation of reopening, even though charter schools are the most successful educational endeavor in the city.
Likewise, another topic was insurance, which he allowed to proceed in a manner that just showed the economic ignorance of the panelists. Since the happening of a pandemic is not a quantifiable risk, it is not insurable. To insist that the government provide insurance, at a premium that can only be set politically, has many problems. What’s more, the ignorance of the position espoused – that the government should somehow make the insurers who did not provide or charge for such coverage pay for it anyway – should not have been allowed to go unanswered.
On a related note, there was talk about how the city may or may not be able to help because there is a budget crisis. But where was the mention that DeBlasio is the cause? There was already a budget crisis before the pandemic and the civil unrest, not because of it. And DeBlasio’s actions during the pandemic and protests will certainly inhibit the ability of the City to reopen.
Hendrix should have made sure that the discussion included the knowledge and competence that the people of the Manhattan Institute espouse. There is no question in my mind that Heather MacDonald, Steve Malanga, and Nicole Gelinas would have been very disappointed with the exchange.
