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.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, LAW, POLITICS
The police have a PR problem and a culture of cover up and it’s finally being talked about. On the one hand, the police have millions of contacts with the public over a given year and the vast majority of interactions are fine, even dull. But sometimes you have bad police and sometimes you have a bad interaction (including, though not limited to, a shooting). However, almost never do you see the police admit that they messed up.
George Floyd’s situation was unique in that they admitted the wrongdoing right away, though this was likely because the horrific actions were immediately all over the internet. But police have this culture of lying and doing nothing about terrible tragedies in which they do the wrong thing. For instance, the police typically want to see body cams first before the public gets a chance to so they can see what the cams show and then figure out how to spin it. The proper way to conduct an investigation would be to actually investigate first and then look at the body cams to see what they can corroborate or dispute. Maybe this attitude is symptomatic of the public service culture, because typically in the private sector you don’t have the same attitude. If, for example, a Walmart employee, through an improper action ,hurts a customer, Walmart will get rid of the employee because they don’t tolerate the abuse of a member of the public. Not necessarily so with the police, and this attitude needs reform if there is going to be meaningful change.
Police in this country need to remember that they are public servants but they are also responsible for their own behavior and police departments need to hold accountable the bad cops if they are going to maintain public trust.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, QUICKLY NOTED
One of my favorite topics is the Jones Act, a little-known maritime law that has a big impact shipping goods. I have written extensively on it before, so I was delighted to see the Competitive Enterprise Institute publish a paper on the topic since the Jones Act has been in place for 100 years now. Below is the Executive Summary, and then a link to the full paper. It is a must-read for understanding why the Jones Act needs to be abolished.
“The Jones Act requires any ship traveling between two U.S. points to be U.S.-manufactured, -owned, -flagged, and -crewed. This heavy-handed protectionist measure was enacted in 1920 with the stated purpose of ensuring a strong merchant marine to support America’s commerce and the nation’s preparedness for war and national emergency. A century later, the evidence is clear: The law has not only failed to accomplish any of those objectives, it has systematically undermined each of them.
Today the Jones Act mostly covers well over 30,000 tugs and barges plying America’s inland waterways, and its punitive restrictions mainly benefit railways and trucking companies.1 As for America’s once mighty oceangoing merchant marine, the law has protected it to death: Less than 100 oceangoing vessels remain in the Jones Act fleet. As of 2019, the few American shipyards that can build commercial oceangoing vessels are being kept afloat by defense contracts.
The law’s supporters argue that because its costs are difficult to quantify, it is not clear that it costs anything. This is highly misleading. The law is designed precisely to restrict the supply of domestic shipping so that American domestic ship operators and shipbuilders can charge more. Shipping rates on Jones Act routes are typically several times more expensive than rates in the competitive international market, especially in terms of cost per nautical mile traveled for a standard container. The Jones Act’s proponents are fervent supporters of “buy American” but the law favors imports over domestic commerce. It is protectionism for foreigners.
The law has also failed its national security mission. The military utility of the Jones Act fleet has faded faster than the Jones Act fleet’s dwindling numbers. Modern warfare requires transport ships that are fast and flexible, while the global maritime industry is heading in the other direction, with transport ships that are increasingly slower, bigger, and less maneuverable. As for national emergencies, every time one requires sealift, the Jones Act needs to be waived so victims can get the relief they need from ships that are actually available.
According to one study, the Jones Act is equivalent to a 64.6 percent tariff on domestic seaborne trade. For Alaska, Hawaii, and especially Puerto Rico, the impact is particularly onerous. The impact of the Jones Act on American energy is also notable, and difficult to justify in today’s world of globally dominant North American oil production and falling prices.
While repeal of the Jones Act would be ideal, at a minimum, significant reforms are long overdue.”
You can read the full analysis here.
