by | BLOG, COVID, ELECTIONS, GOVERNMENT, LAW, POLITICS
The Democrat’s have had court victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other states in connection with requiring that votes received after election day must nevertheless be counted. And in many of these decisions, the Courts have simply overruled the actual wording of the relevant law. Since it is accepted that many more Democrats than Republicans will be voting by mail, there seems to be a general belief that this is good for Democrats. But should that really be the takeaway?
It is quite clear that no matter what concessions the Democrats win in court, a huge number of mail-in votes will be invalidated. Whether because of mail delays (past even the extended deadlines), signature issues, proper following of instructions, etc. many ballots will be invalidated. I believe that these rejected ballots will far exceed any additional votes gleaned by enabling people to not have to physically go to the polls. People voting by mail are likely to be those who would, absent Covid, have gone to the polls. Extra votes would probably only come from “harvesting”, which will hopefully be quashed.
Also, I believe it likely that Appeals courts will reverse at least the most egregious overreaches by the state courts. It is hard to see how blatant rewriting of legislation could be considered acceptable, even by Democratic leaning courts. But unlike some, I do not believe that the Supreme Court will weigh in. I believe that SCOTUS will say that the States have ultimate authority to determine their own voting procedures.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, LAW, POLITICS
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.
by | BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, POLITICS
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.
by | BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY, EDUCATION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, POLITICS
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.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, GOVERNMENT, RETIREMENT
There’s another issue with regard to the crushing liabilities of public sector pensions. Several states, such as California and New York, have a constitutional amendment that grants pension entitlement to public sector workers. In other words, once a person is working for the government and they have a defined benefit plan, they are entitled to keep it and transfer it, even if the contract runs out.
This kind of constitutional amendment says it’s a constitutional requirement to pay employees for their pensions. Now, what it should mean legally is that any pension any employee is earned, it is a constitutional obligation. But that’s not the problem. It has been redefined by the leftest political structure and judiciary to mean something else, which from an economic literacy point of view, that something is incompetent. They have defined it to pay the pension not only for what they’ve earned but also include an obligation to continue that level of funding into new contracts, even those that aren’t signed on yet. So even if a contract is over, it’s not really over. And their employer can’t renegotiate it.
In contrast, in private industries, if an employer terminates a defined benefit plan by a negotiation with a person or whatever, they can’t reduce what they already promised, but there’s an amount that is calculable and then that’s it. Whatever you’ve earned in a contract is specific to that contract. When the contract is over, you have to negotiate a new contract. The terms can be the same. The terms can be different. You may suddenly get offered a contract with no medical benefits when you once had medical benefits. By and large, contracts tend to be the same but there is no obligation to have anything in a new contract that existed in a prior contract.
But in the government world in some places, you have to give the person the same pension benefits in a new contract. Therefore, that is a whole additional cost factored into what an employee earns. The fact that he is required to be given that benefit in the future is an additional cost that is never factored into the equation. As a result, we have enormous forced sums of liabilities that add to the unreported sheets. Yet the municipalities say they are entitled to keep that same level of funding, which is economically illogical and illiterate. The crux of the problem is that the amendment is interpreted in a way that interferes with the ability for two parties to contract by giving one party extra benefits. This is both unjust and financially negligent.
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 | 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.
