by | ARTICLES, BLOG, EDUCATION, FED, GOVERNMENT
Recently, a young PhD student came to terms with the fact that academia was no longer based on merit. Rather, as a scientific researcher interested in procuring grant funding, he was dismayed to learn that certain terms such as “equity,” “diversity,” and “inclusion” were not only social goals, but now also scientific ones; in other words, they were increasingly being used in descriptions of actual scientific work.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) awards millions in grants each year and the agency which renders their decision does so on two accounts: intellectual merit and broader impact. It is within the broader impact realm that the aforementioned social terms, among others, were being applied and interpreted. The appearance of particular terms related to identity politics in award abstracts, including “equity,” “diversity,” “inclusion,” “gender,” “marginalize,” “underrepresented,” and “disparity” increased substantially over the last thirty years.
In 1990, only 3 percent of award abstracts contained one of the terms, while in 2020, 30 percent of all award abstracts included at least one of those terms. Notably, the category which changed the most was Education and Human Resources, which went from 4% to 54% during that time span.
The problem with scientific research playing politics means that social causes as a scientific end are being elevated while intellectual merit and other similar criteria are being diminished.
This reminds me of the observation Rasmussen made, that “the more that scientific institutions are viewed as conduits for promulgating ideology, the less capable they will be of swaying public opinion on important issues.” Science and science funding should stick to being concerned with searching for truth among empirical evidence, not social activism.
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, FED, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TAXES
It’s kind of disgusting that when Congress talks about raising tax revenue, all the CBO thinks about and includes in their analyses is gross revenue. They don’t think about the costs of what the IRS, agencies, businesses, and taxpayers need to do to implement the policies that were created in order to raise that revenue. Those costs should always be factored in the computation and subsequently deducted to arrive at net revenue raised..
What’s happening now is that the compliance costs are not being considered. Congress says, for instance, that something will raise “$50 billion dollars” but then ignores that the complications, regulation issuance costs, compliance and other implementation expenses that will arise may cost $30 billion. So only $20 billion is actually raised. These hidden but true costs have to be included and come out of the CBO revenue forecast if we are to craft realistic, equitable, and efficient tax policy
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 | ARTICLES, BLOG, FED, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY
I’ve written about Andrew Weissmann in these pages before, and this article, written earlier in the year, recently came to my attention. Weissmann has a history of despicable lawyer practices, and this latest article shows growing concern about his past tactics — which could ultimately affect his role in the present investigation. I have reprinted the article below:
The top attorney in Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s office was reported to the Department of Justice’s Inspector General by a lawyer representing whistleblowers for alleged “corrupt legal practices” more than a year before the 2016 presidential election and a decade before to the Senate Judiciary Committee, this reporter has learned.
Described by the New York Times as Mueller’s ‘pitbull,‘ Andrew Weissmann, a former Eastern District of New York Assistant U.S. Attorney, rose through the ranks to eventually become Mueller’s general counsel at the F.B.I.
In 2015 Weissmann was selected to run the Department of Justice’s criminal fraud section and was later handpicked by Mueller to join the ongoing Special Counsel’s Office investigation into the alleged obstruction and alleged collusion between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.
But Weissmann’s rise to the top was rocky from the start. Although he’s been described as a tough prosecutor by some, his involvement in a case targeting the Colombo crime family in a New York Eastern District Court was the first of many that would draw criticism from his peers, as well as judges.
Civil rights and criminal defense attorney David Schoen, was the lawyer who reported Weissmann. Schoen met with Inspector General Michael Horowitz and several FBI officials to discuss Weismann in 2015. Schoen, who says he has never been a member of a political party, told this reporter his concerns about Weissmann do not stem from politics but from Weissmann’s ‘egregious’ actions in previous cases. He became involved in Colombo crime cases more than 20 years ago after evidence revealed that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in the case.
Schoen said he decided to revisit the case based on new witness information and “recent evidence that has come to light in the last several months.”
“The issue with Weissmann both pre-dates and transcends any of these current political issues,” said Schoen, who also used to represent the ACLU in Alabama. “I have met with Senator (Charles) Grassley’s staff and the DOJ IG about these issues and that was well before all of this…I care about these issues as a person who chose this profession and am otherwise very proud to be able to practice law, as the proud son of an FBI agent, and as a civil rights attorney dedicated to doing my part in trying to improve public institutions.”
John Lavinsky, a spokesman for the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General, declined to comment on Schoen’s meeting with Horowitz.
Weissmann also declined to comment for this story.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FED, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, POTUS, TRUMP
George Will shined the light on yet another disturbing case of civil asset forfeiture a practice that denies citizens the right to due process. In this particular instance, a border agent on US soil unlawfully demanded the password a citizen’s phone; when he refused, they searched his truck and then seized possession of it after finding five .380-caliber bullets (and no weapon) in the truck’s center console. Their rationale? He was transporting “munitions of war.”
Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to take money or property from a citizen who is merely suspected of criminal activity — not charged or convicted. Though original asset forfeiture laws were aimed at drug cartels to interrupt their business and money, it use has expanded rapidly in recent years. It’s not being used just for “organized crime” anymore; that’s a red herring that gives police a green light to continue to abuse citizens and take their property without due process. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent and have to prove that they were not involved in any criminal activity, which can be a long and expensive process against the government.
Outrageously, the citizen had to petition to get a judicial hearing about his truck (after paying a bond of 10% of his truck’s value) — but then the hearing actually never happened. He never got his due process and only got his truck back after two years, during which he faithfully continued making loan payments and maintained insurance. This lack of any hearing for a citizen to redress the unlawful seizure is not an anomaly, either. In fact, the citizen is now pursuing a class action lawsuit, just “to establish a right to prompt post-seizure judicial hearings,” which should already be a given anyway in such incidences — even though the practice of civil asset forfeiture should be abolished outright.
Civil asset forfeiture is really all about money. “Under the equitable sharing program, federal authorities may “adopt” state and local forfeiture cases and prosecute them at the federal level. Those local police departments get to keep up to 80 percent of the forfeiture revenue, while the rest goes into the equitable sharing pool and is distributed among partner departments around the country.” During the Obama Administration — after some highly publicized appalling asset forfeiture cases, Obama began addressing asset forfeiture and restrictions were rightly implemented as a stepping stone to reign in this abominable practice. Unfortunately last year, AG Jeff Sessions loosened those once again.
Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent of asset forfeiture last year when SCOTUS chose not to hear a case on the matter. He wrote, “this system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses. He further pointed out, “because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.” Clarence Thomas is entirely correct, and the policy of civil asset forfeiture should be entirely eliminated. Continuing to highlight this abhorrent practice is the only way to bring about change.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FED, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS
Did you even notice that whenever the economy issues good results (a strong jobs report, etc.), the stock market goes DOWN? Logic would seemingly have it be the opposite. If the economy was strong, one would assume the stock market would respond positively. But often that’s not really the case.
For years, I couldn’t understand it — how stupid could the market be? Why would the market do poorly? Wall Street professionals claim to understand it. They point out that the stock market and economy are not necessarily affected the same way. When the economy is strong, the market has often already gone up in anticipation of the improving economy. But with the stronger economy, the Fed is likely to hike interest rates, threatening the strong growth going forward. Also, with interest rates rising, investors have the alternative of earning fixed, safe rates of return by buying bonds.
Though I do follow that logic, I do not agree with it. My strong belief is that as long as the economy is strong, with sound existing economic policies in place, I believe that financial growth and profitability will continue. And I would view downturns caused by positive financial results as a buying opportunity.
The economy has begun the road to renewed growth – finally getting rid of the Obama stagnation caused by increasing taxes, stifling regulation, and anti-business sentiment. It’s unreasonable to believe that the concern of interest rates should have more sway than a growing economy. Even if interest rates rise, does anyone really believe that a business will forego an expansion opportunity just because borrowing costs are 1 or 2 percentage points higher?
Of course, it would make sense for the stock market to become weaker if President Trump goes ahead with his economically ignorant tariff and anti-free-trade policies, as well as his economically stagnating immigration restrictions.
But as for now, the fluctuations are a confirmation of a stronger economy and the multiple opportunities afforded to investors.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FED, POLITICS, POTUS, TAXES, TRUMP
The Trump Administration has continued the same path of deficit spending as its predecessors.
(CNSNews.com) – The federal government collected record total tax revenues through the first eleven months of fiscal 2017 (Oct. 1, 2016 through the end of August), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.
Through August, the federal government collected approximately $2,966,172,000,000 in total tax revenues.
That was $8,450,680,000 more (in constant 2017 dollars) than the previous record of $2,957,721,320,000 in total tax revenues (in 2017 dollars) that the federal government collected in the first eleven months of fiscal 2016.
At the same time that the federal government was collecting a record $2,966,172,000,000 in tax revenues, it was spending $3,639,882,000,000—and, thus, running a deficit of $673,711,000,000.
Individual income taxes have provided the largest share (47.9 percent) of federal revenues so far this fiscal year. From Oct. 1 through the end of August, the Treasury collected $1,421,997,000,000 in individual income taxes.
Payroll taxes provided the second largest share (35.9 percent), with the Treasury collecting $1,065,751,000,000 in these taxes.
The $233,631 in corporate income taxes collected in the first eleven months of fiscal 2017 equaled only 8.6 percent of total tax collections.
The $21,172,000,000 collected in estate and gift taxes equaled only 0.71 percent of total taxes collected this fiscal year.
(Tax revenues were adjusted to constant 2017 using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.)
by | BLOG, FED, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS
Something that Congress needs to seriously consider is eliminating the authorization of federal agencies to designate violations of their rules as actual crimes.
Unbeknownst to the vast majority of Americans, federal agencies – consisting of no elected representatives at all – have the right to create criminal statutes. There are numerous, egregious instances that have come about where people were convicted of crimes made by agencies that no one knew -or even should have known – was a crime in the first place. This needs to end!
For example, in 2007, Lawrence Lewis, pleaded guilty of unknowingly violating the Clean Water Act. His crime? He and his crew followed policy and diverted overflowing waters – which threatened to flood the health care building he was servicing- into the street. Though the drain was connected to the city’s system, it actually emptied into a creek that flowed into the Potomac River. He had to pay a fine and submit himself to unannounced probation checks at home and at his subsequent job.
Likewise, in 2009, Eddie Leroy Anderson and his son dug for arrowheads for his collection while camping. Because it turned out that they were on federal land, that action violated the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 which they didn’t even know existed. They eventually pleaded guilty to avoid jail time and paid a $1500 fine — and never even found any arrowheads that day.
Then there the case of Robert Kern, a Virginian who was hunting moose in Russia. His hunting group shot animals from a helicopter, which is illegal in Russia; therefore, he was charged with violating the U.S. 2008 Lacey Act, a statute that makes it a felony to import fish or wildlife if it breaks another country’s laws.” The only way he was actually acquitted was due to a Russian official intervening and testifying at his trial that his group had a legal exemption — so he should never have been charged in the first place! What’s more, he was still on the hook for $860,000 in legal bills for something he didn’t even do!
The list could go on and on, because it’s impossible to quantify the number of agency statues. According to the Wall Street Journal (“As Criminal Laws Proliferate, More Are Ensnared, July 23, 2001), there were “an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, according to a 2008 study by retired Louisiana State University law professor John Baker.There are also thousands of regulations that carry criminal penalties. Some laws are so complex, scholars debate whether they represent one offense, or scores of offenses.
Counting them is impossible. The Justice Department spent two years trying in the 1980s, but produced only an estimate: 3,000 federal criminal offenses. The American Bar Association tried in the late 1990s, but concluded only that the number was likely much higher than 3,000. The ABA’s report said “the amount of individual citizen behavior now potentially subject to federal criminal control has increased in astonishing proportions in the last few decades.” Likewise, a Justice spokeswoman said there was no quantifiable number. Criminal statutes are sprinkled throughout some 27,000 pages of the federal code.”
No one ever intended for federal agencies to have the right to make up their own crimes — never mind the staggering number we have today. We need to remove authorization to create and approve crimes that ensnare good law-abiding citizens and turn them into felons over obscure matters.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FED
In an interesting move this week and true to the Fed plan to raise rates three times this year, Fed Chair Janet Yellen raised interest rates .25%. It’s worth it to note that at the same time, the Feds downgraded the forecast for inflation:
The central bank now believes inflation will fall well short of its 2 percent target this year. The post-meeting statement said inflation “has declined recently” even as household spending has “picked up in recent months,” the latter an upgrade from the May statement that said spending had “rose only modestly.” The statement also noted that inflation in the next 12 months “is expected to remain somewhat below 2 percent in the near term” but to stabilize.
At the same time, the Feds up the forecast for GDP growth slightly to 2.2%, up from a 2.1% forecast. They also anticipated a drop in unemployment as well, from 4.5% to 4.3%.
The Fed vote to go up a quarter-percent was not unanimous, however. “Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari on Friday said he voted against an interest-rate hike this week because he wasn’t convinced the recent spate of soft inflation readings was due to one-off factors…We should have waited to see if the recent drop in inflation is transitory to ensure that we are fulling our inflation mandate” to get inflation back to 2%, Kashkari said. Kashari was the only dissenting vote out of nine.
Earlier this year, the Federal Reserve tentatively planned three rate hikes in 2017 and three rate hikes in 2018. So far, they’ve completed two, and seem to want to stay on that track. Time will tell if this rate hike and pathway are good for the economy.
by | ARTICLES, FED, GOVERNMENT, HEALTHCARE, IRS, LAW, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
In response to Donald Trump’s Executive Order last week, the IRS altered its rules about tax returns and Obamacare’s “shared responsibility” penalty. This is one of the methods of paying for Obamacare, and if collection of the penalty is not being strictly enforced, it will contribute further to the already unstable financial state Obamacare is in.
From Reason.com:
How much difference does a single line on a tax form make? For Obamacare’s individual mandate, the answer might be quite a lot.
Following President Donald Trump’s executive order instructing agencies to provide relief from the health law, the Internal Revenue Service appears to be taking a more lax approach to the coverage requirement.
The health law’s individual mandate requires everyone to either maintain qualifying health coverage or pay a tax penalty, known as a “shared responsibility payment.” The IRS was set to require filers to indicate whether they had maintained coverage in 2016 or paid the penalty by filling out line 61 on their form 1040s. Alternatively, they could claim exemption from the mandate by filing a form 8965.
For most filers, filling out line 61 would be mandatory. The IRS would not accept 1040s unless the coverage box was checked, or the shared responsibility payment noted, or the exemption form included. Otherwise they would be labeled “silent returns” and rejected.
Instead, however, filling out that line will be optional.
Earlier this month, the IRS quietly altered its rules to allow the submission of 1040s with nothing on line 61. The IRS says it still maintains the option to follow up with those who elect not to indicate their coverage status, although it’s not clear what circumstances might trigger a follow up.
But what would have been a mandatory disclosure will instead be voluntary. Silent returns will no longer be automatically rejected. The change is a direct result of the executive order President Donald Trump issued in January directing the government to provide relief from Obamacare to individuals and insurers, within the boundaries of the law.
“The recent executive order directed federal agencies to exercise authority and discretion available to them to reduce potential burden,” the IRS said in a statement to Reason. “Consistent with that, the IRS has decided to make changes that would continue to allow electronic and paper returns to be accepted for processing in instances where a taxpayer doesn’t indicate their coverage status.”
The tax agency says the change will reduce the health law’s strain on taxpayers. “Processing silent returns means that taxpayer returns are not systemically rejected, allowing them to be processed and minimizing burden on taxpayers, including those expecting a refund,” the IRS statement said.
The change may seem minor. But it makes it clear that following Trump’s executive order, the agency’s trajectory is towards a less strict enforcement process.
Although the new policy leaves Obamacare’s individual mandate on the books, it may make it easier for individuals to go without coverage while avoiding the penalty. Essentially, if not explicitly, it is a weakening of the mandate enforcement mechanism.
“It’s hard to enforce something without information,” says Ryan Ellis, a Senior Fellow at the Conservative Reform Network.
The move has already raised questions about its legality. Federal law gives the administration broad authority to provide exemptions from the mandate. But “it does not allow the administration not to enforce the mandate, which it appears they may be doing here,” says Michael Cannon, health policy director at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Unless the Trump administration maintains the mandate is unconstitutional, the Constitution requires them to enforce it.”
“The mandate can only be weakened by Congress,” says Ellis. “This is a change to how the IRS is choosing to enforce it. They will count on voluntary disclosure of non-coverage rather than asking themselves.”
The IRS notes that taxpayers are still required to pay the mandate penalty, if applicable. “Legislative provisions of the ACA law are still in force until changed by the Congress, and taxpayers remain required to follow the law and pay what they may owe,” the agency statement said.
Ellis says the new policy doesn’t fully rise to the level of declining to enforce the law. “If the IRS turns a blind eye to people’s status, that isn’t quite not enforcing it,” he says. “It’s more like the IRS wanting to maintain plausible deniability.”
Tax software companies are already making note of the change. Drake Software, which provides services to tax professionals, recently sent out a notice explaining the change in policy. As of February 3, the notice said, the IRS “will now accept an e-filed return that does not indicate either full-year coverage or an individual shared responsibility payment or does not include an exemption on Form 8965, as required by IRS instructions, Form 1040, line 61.”
The mandate is a key component of Obamacare’s coverage scheme, which is built on what experts sometimes describe as a “three-legged stool.” The law requires health insurers to sell to all comers regardless of health history, and offers subsidies to lower income individuals in order to offset the cost of coverage. In order to prevent people from signing up for coverage only after getting sick, it also requires most individuals to maintain qualifying coverage or face a tax penalty. While defending the health law in court, the Obama administration maintained that the mandate was essential to the structure of the law, designed to make sure that people did not take advantage of its protections.
In a 2012 case challenging the law’s insurance requirement, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional as a tax penalty. The IRS is in charge of collecting payments.
Some health policy experts have argued that the mandate was already too weak to be effective, as a result of the many exemptions that are included. A 2012 report by the consulting firm Milliman found that the mandate penalty offered only a modest financial incentives for families making 300-400 percent of the federal poverty line. More recently, health insurers have said that individuals signing up for coverage and then quickly dropping it after major health expenses is a key driver of losses, and rising health insurance premiums.
It’s too early to say whether the change will ultimately make any difference. But given the centrality of the mandate to the law’s coverage scheme and the unsteadiness of the law’s health insurance exchanges, with premiums rising and insurers scaling back participation, it is possible that even a marginal weakening of the mandate could cause further dysfunction. Health insurers have said the mandate is a priority, and asked for it to be strengthened. Weaker enforcement of the mandate could cause insurance carriers to further reduce participation in the exchanges. One major insurer, Humana, said today that it would completely exit Obamacare’s exchanges after this year.
It is also possible that congressional Republicans will make it moot by repealing much of the law, including its individual mandate, which, as a tax, can be taken down with just 51 Senate votes.
Regardless of its direct impact, however, the change may signal that the Trump administration intends to water down enforcement of the health law’s most controversial requirement, even if those steps are seemingly small. The Trump administration may not be tearing Obamacare down entirely, but it appears to be taking steps to weaken the law, however subtly, one line at a time.
