by | ARTICLES, BLOG, COVID, HYPOCRISY, MEDIA, QUICKLY NOTED
This article from the WSJ is a must-read reflecting how the media reported on the pandemic:
“Has there been in recent history a more tendentious, hysterical, data-denying and frankly disreputable exercise in misdirection than the way in which much of America’s media has covered the Covid-19 epidemic?
Perhaps we can forgive them the endless repetition of pandemic porn; the selectively culled stories of tragedy about otherwise completely healthy young people succumbing to the virus. While we know that the chances of someone under 30 being killed by Covid are very slim, we know too that news judgments have always favored the exceptional and horrific over the routine and unremarkable.
Perhaps we can even forgive them the rapidly shifting headlines—each one shouting with absolute certitude—about the basic facts of the virus and its context: its lethality and transmissibility, the merits of mask-wearing, or the effectiveness of this or that therapy. The science is evolving, and so too is the reporting.
But there are larger representations of this massive and complex story that we should mark as simply unforgivable.
First, the notion, implicit or at times explicit, in so much of the reporting, that the U.S. handling of the pandemic has been a globally unique failure. This is quickly ascribed to the ignorance and malevolence of the Clorox-injecting, quack-cure-peddling bozo in the White House.”
And this:
Even less forgivable is the naked, politically motivated selective use and manipulation of data to damage Republicans and favor Democrats. Typical of this is the steady stream of stories telling us what a great job New York and other (Democrat-controlled) Northeastern states have been doing in managing the spread of the virus, in contrast with the performance of other (Republican-led) states.”
And this:
“There are many reasons for differing rates of infection, death and economic performance, and it would be unwise at this stage to say anything about outcomes with absolute certainty.
But that is perhaps the greatest dishonesty of all: the media’s self-serving insistence that their narrow, partisan narrative of this complex and evolving phenomenon is the revealed and unchallengeable truth.”
The article is worth it to read in its entirety.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, HYPOCRISY, RETIREMENT
Over the years, I have written numerous articles on the looming problem of funding public pensions. Many states are facing severe shortfalls and it isn’t due to the economy or the recent recession or the pandemic. The main problem is accounting gimmicks that cities and states regularly do which results in underreporting their pensions. In the private sector, if someone were to underreport a pension, they go to jail for it, but the public sector gets away with it, and the taxpayer is left holding the bag.
Here’s what’s going on. A principle of normal (accrual) accounting is that if you have incurred current expenses, they have to be reported currently. You cannot delay reporting it until a future year, even if it is not paid until a future year. You have to count their costs today. So when you accrue an expense — for instance, a legal fee — you owe that money. Even if the bill arrives after the new year and you pay it that next year, you still owe it for the current year when incurred. It is a payable – that is, a liability – as of the end of the year incurred.. This is accrual basis accounting, and it’s how pensions must be accounted for in the public sector — but they’re not. And therein lies the problem.
When an employee works for a government (or any organization) in a given year, all costs associated with that employment must be recorded as an expense for that year. Naturally, the regular pay iis an expense incurred. That’s an easy enough concept to understand. But there are other things to consider — for instance, a bonus. If you have a bonus that is not paid until the next year, it still has to be recorded in the year it was earned. Now, pensions are not paid out in the year worked or the year after, but they will be years in the future and actuaries can calculate that amount. That amount is not what is booked as an expense. What is booked as an expense is what’s paid. There’s a disconnect between the funding requirement for pensions, and those funding requirements are usually less than the cost incurred.
If that amount is two billion dollars (one billion earned now and one billion in future pension benefits) you are supposed to record two billion dollars. In other words, that liability should be factored in on the balance sheet. But what’s happening instead is that they’re merely recording the one billion earned by the employee as an expense and not accounting for future payouts. There is no measure of a pension’s accrued actuarial liabilities (the current value of earned benefits in the future). The accountants are merely recording the present expenses while underreporting the future ones.
In a given year, you might incur $100 million in future payments for employees who work. So that $100 million is the true cost. Remember that even though the money is not paid for many years, you still need to know what that cost is today, and include that amount in the budget. You cannot say you’ll ignore it and not include it because you won’t pay it for twenty years. But that is what has been happening. Suffice it to say, in the private sector, it’s very onerous. You have to pay in an amount very close to what the cost is so that the company doesn’t go bankrupt and then leave the pensions hanging. That is both right and responsible. But the morons in the public sector think that because the municipality is so powerful, it doesn’t have to do the funding requirement — and therein lies the reason why they are in trouble. They only put the amount that they pay as an expense; they don’t put the whole thing. That is fraud. So now they’re falling further behind. Even if they don’t have to fund it all, they are required to keep a balanced budget, but they don’t.
What’s even more difficult, a lot of municipalities also promised other things like future medical expenses, and those aren’t even booked. They’ll just list it as an expense when it is paid. That’s not right. You can’t promise someone a benefit and have a legal obligation for the future and then not book it on your books. And what’s worst of all is a constitutional amendment in several states 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. 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.
These non-standard, non-accrual forms of accounting for public pensions over the past few decades have resulted in reckless — and dare I say criminal — budgets resulting in billions and trillions of unfunded liabilities that in some places are financially insurmountable. Those that have engaged in such practices should be sued criminally for intentionally filing false sheets on their pensions.
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, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
Last week, Nick Gillespie of Reason moderated a webinar on policing and protests with Jacob Sullivan and C.J. Ciaramella. Gillespie is a thoughtful libertarian whose discussions I generally enjoy. Thus, I was appalled to hear Gillespie –no less than five times during the hour-long segment–refer to the 2014 Ferguson incident with Michael Brown as the beginning of the focus on police abuse and brutality. That is completely fictional. It was very clearly established that the police did nothing wrong in that case, a determination subsequently confirmed by the DOJ report — under Eric Holder no less!
It’s bad enough that this particular lie continues to be propagated by the left and progressives and repeated again and again, but for Reason to do so? For Nick Gillespie to do so? This is shameful. There are certainly well known cases of very wrongful and egregious cases of police misconduct that inform society’s dealing with the problem. But the Michael Brown incident – with its now famous though absolutely false “hands up, don’t shoot” – is actually a potent example of a mantra of a movement built on a lie.
To present Michael Brown’s case in the same sentence as George Floyd or Breonna Taylor is both damaging and reckless and it undermines the credibility of any meaningful conversation on a very important topic.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, HYPOCRISY
The New York Times continued its ludicrous partisan writing in its coverage of the Flynn affair, calling his position a “reckless gamble.” At the same time, note that the reason why Flynn was recently exonerated is not even mentioned! Of course, it was clear that there was no basis to start the questioning in the first place, which as a matter of law makes the “lie” irrelevant. Also, since at the time the prosecuting parties had all testified that there was no Flynn or Trump wrongdoing about Russia (the underlying crime being investigated), the “lie” could not possibly have been “material” – a factor necessary for the “lie” to have been a crime.
This was an intentional attempt to 1) create a lie, 2) threaten Flynn’s family to force him to admit to a crime, and 3), and have everyone from Schiff, Obama, etc. lie about it to the public to gain political advantage. For the NYT to completely omit any mention of the FBI’s ambush interview and its lack of protocol handling the Flynn case is journalistic malpractice.
by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, HYPOCRISY, TRUMP
Democrat Kamala Harris is the latest Presidential candidate to peddle the myth about “pay gaps” for female workers, going so far as to make this an essential part of her platform. Harris has a plan to require larger companies with 100 or more employees to obtain an “equal pay certification” every two years in order to ensure that men and women are paid equally.
There are many reasons a pay gap to exist — but it isn’t because of one’s gender. It has been shown time and again that many women have alternative career paths by choice: different jobs, amounts of time worked, lifestyle flexibility, and risks in occupation to name a few; therefore, any difference in the pay is a result of those choices and not discrimination.
Taking these items into consideration, the pay gap myth shrinks almost entirely, likely no more than a 2% variance. This empirical analysis should not be surprising — in fact, it should be what any normal person, certainly any business person, would expect. Because the simple economic reality is that if women actually did make 23% less than men in wage costs for the same work, businesses would almost entirely hire women as a means to minimize labor costs and maximize profits. Since this does not actually happen, it is obvious that the 23% wage disparity merely a distortion perpetuated by the Left to score easy talking points.
It is also a false conclusion that a gender pay gap is damaging to women because women will likely have substantially less money saved and earned over her lifetime. Those such as Harris that push such nonsense don’t even consider that, for many women, working full time may be “damaging” to women who have alternative life goals — such as raising a family — and that amassing retirement funds might not be the ultimate end focus. Voters should reject Harris “equal pay certification” proposal as economic nonsense.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, LAW, TAXES
New York Governor Cuomo leads a four-state lawsuit against the federal government over the tax reform law that passed last fall. Governor Cuomo declared it “a practical act of self-defense against an adversarial federal government” and suggested that the bill was aimed to target left-leaning states.
But everybody who has any knowledge of taxation and its constitutionality knows that Cuomo’s assertion is ludicrous. The SALT deduction – and ALL deductions – are at the complete discretion of Congress. And as long as deductions apply under the same rules to every taxpayer no matter where situated, constitutionality can never be an issue.
Cuomo’s sudden role as tax crusader is laughable at best, hypocritical at worst. Cuomo and his cronies would do well to focus on reducing their states’ tax burden for their citizens instead of over something that is patently constitutional.
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, FREEDOM, HYPOCRISY, TAXES
FEE.org recently shed light on the ridiculous behavior of Oxfam, a charity that is supposed to be dedicated to fighting poverty. Indeed, their statement of purpose proclaims “The purpose of Oxfam is to help create lasting solutions to the injustice of poverty. “
However, careful reading of their most recent report show that Oxfam spends most of its time, energy, and our donated funds monitoring and writing about the false “need” to reducing wealth and income inequality – the very opposite of fighting poverty. If poverty is the “state of being very poor” then it follows that the elimination of such destitution would mean moving from being very poor to less poor, i.e., increasing wealth. Thus, it would follow that an increase of wealth would to be an inherently good as a means to achieve the goal of poverty reduction, right? Not so with Oxfam. Growing wealth is increasingly seen as a bad thing.
Indeed, last year, Oxfam seemed preoccupied with the notion that some people have too much wealth. In their 2017 report, “Oxfam condemns the fact that there is now a dramatic increase in the number of billionaires around the world. It considers this phenomenon as indicative of “extreme wealth.”
The fact is that economic growth is NOT a zero sum game – the more growth there is, the more benefits to all levels of society. There is no doubt that the creations of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have had enormous effects in reducing world poverty – despite the fact that they became billionaires in the process.It is also the fact that an increase in the amount of wealthy persons indicates that upward mobility can and is being achieved by more people. In fact, “global extreme poverty has fallen dramatically over recent decades. It is likely that extreme poverty will be eliminated within the current generation. This won’t satisfy Oxfam, however, because it concerns itself with the rich, not the destitute.”
Not content with having mismatched priorities, Oxfam has also cobbled together a list of suggestions for global, national, and local governments, suggestions that do not relate to poverty reduction. Oxfam urges “policies to tackle all forms of gender discrimination, promote positive social norms and attitudes towards women and women’s work, and rebalance power dynamics at the household, local, national and international levels.”
When a charity loses its purpose and becomes a social engineering, social justice organization, one should not be supporting it. Poverty is egregious. Lifting folks out of poverty is important. To not realize that increasing world economic growth and wealth – yes, and even making many more billionaires – has been what has been so effective in reducing world poverty, simply shows economic illiteracy. berate an increase in wealth and instead desire to “level the playing field” betrays its mission; Oxfam is to be avoided.
