A group of activist students at Sarah Lawrence College calling themselves the Diaspora Coalition have released a long list of demands after occupying the campus’s main administrative building for 24 hours.
One of these demands concerns Samuel Abrams, a tenured professor of politics. Abrams is conservative-leaning, and has complained about the ideological bias of leftist administrators in a New York Timesop-ed. Last November, his office door was vandalized by unknown persons who wanted him to apologize to marginalized students and quit the college.
Now the Diaspora College is demanding that Sarah Lawrence review Abrams’ tenure. The review should be conducted by a panel consisting of members of—you guessed it—the Diaspora Coalition, as well as faculty members of color.
“In addition, the College must issue a statement condemning the harm that Abrams has caused to the college community, specifically queer, Black, and female students,” the demands continue. The college must also apologize “for its refusal to protect marginalized students wounded by his op-ed and the ignorant dialogue that followed. Abrams must issue a public apology to the broader SLC community and cease to target Black people, queer people, and women.”
At least 25 Sarah Lawrence professors stand by the demands, which include a variety of additional progressive goals, according to the campus’ activist publication, The Phoenix.
The college did not respond to a request for comment. Abrams was underwhelmed by the college’s previous statements regarding his free speech rights when his office door was vandalized, and is certainly not impressed now.
“The College had a chance to take the lead and serve as an national example in terms of how to have civil debates and disagreement and discuss facts and how they differ from opinions,” Abrams told me via email. “Sadly, the school did not come out strongly on academic freedom and free speech and this behavior runs against the core values of the College itself.”
Sarah Lawrence President Cristle Collins Judd has evidently agreed to meet with the demonstrators. One of their demands, of course, is that no action be taken to discipline them.
The Illinois Gov. seeks a constitutional amendment to change the tax code. He calls it a “fair tax”. Don’t be fooled.
New Illinois J. B. Governor Pritzker (D) has proposed sweeping changes to Illinois’ tax code, advocating a constitutional amendment to permit a graduated-rate income tax and proposing a new rate and bracket structure.
Pritzker’s plan which he labels a “fair tax” will encourage still more flight out of Illinois.
Under the proposal, corporate income would be taxed at 10.45 percent, the third-highest rate in the nation, while pass-through business income would be taxed at a top rate of 9.45 percent, the fourth highest such rate nationwide.
The proposal diverges sharply from ideal—or even typical—income tax structure. It omits inflation indexing (resulting in “bracket creep”), creates a marriage penalty, and includes a recapture provision which subjects the entirety of a taxpayer’s income to the top marginal rate once they reach that bracket.
The neighboring states of Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, and Missouri have all cut income taxes in recent years, while Illinois may be headed in the opposite direction.
The governor’s proposed tax rates are merely notional; should voters permit a graduated-rate income tax, there are compelling reasons to believe that rates may climb even higher, and that more taxpayers would be subjected to higher rates.
Were the proposal implemented, Illinois is projected to decline from 36th to 48th on the State Business Tax Climate Index, which measures tax structure.
Introduction
The new governor of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker (D), has one campaign behind him, but an even bigger one lies ahead: convincing the legislature—and Illinois voters—to scrap a key constitutional feature of Illinois’ system of taxation.
A provision in the state constitution which prohibits a graduated-rate income tax has long been a source of controversy. In a state where taxes tend to be high, it has also been crucial to keeping one tax (the individual income tax) highly competitive, because there are practical and political limits on just how high a rate can go when it is applied uniformly.
The constitutional amendment Gov. Pritzker is championing would change all that, and under the rates and brackets he has proposed, would give Illinois some of country’s highest income taxes (individual and corporate), particularly on businesses. That’s of particular concern in a state that has struggled to stem the tide of business departures, as the governor noted in remarks this week, but it’s only one of many issues raised by the proposal.
All told, the governor’s “Fair Tax for Illinois” proposal would result in a 10.45 percent combined rate on corporate income, and a 9.45 percent rate on about half the state’s pass-through income, including the “personal property replacement taxes” the state tacks onto rates.
Among the Highest Rates in the Country
When Illinois lawmakers repealed the state’s taxes on tangible personal property forty years ago, they paid for the repeal by creating a second set of taxes on both pass-through and corporate income, confusingly termed “personal property replacement taxes” (PPRTs). The name references the tax they replaced rather than the nature of the taxes themselves, which are nothing more than additional income tax levies of 2.5 percent on corporate income and 1.5 percent on the income of pass-through businesses, with revenue devoted to local government. The income of pass-through businesses (S Corps, partnerships, LLCs, and sole proprietorships) “passes through” to their owners’ individual income tax returns (hence the name). Including these taxes, the top rate on pass-through businesses would be 9.45 percent and the new rate on corporate income would be 10.45 percent.
This would represent the third-highest corporate rate in the country, after Iowa (12 percent) and New Jersey (11.5 percent), and Iowa is scheduled to reduce its top corporate rate to 9.8 percent in a few years. It also represents the fourth-highest rate on pass-through income nationwide, after California (13.3 percent), Oregon (9.9 percent), and Minnesota (9.85 percent). The 7.95 percent rate on non-business income would be the eighth-highest state rate in the country.
Neighboring States
Indiana has reduced its top corporate income tax rate from 8 to 5.75 percent and is on track to bring it down to 4.9 percent in a few years, while its individual income tax rate has gone from a flat 3.4 percent to 3.23 percent over five years. Policymakers in Indiana have consciously positioned themselves as a more competitive alternative to Illinois, and they aren’t alone.
In Missouri, a set of bills in 2018 reduced the top income tax rate from 5.9 to 5.5 percent, with a further phasedown to 5.1 percent in the works, while the corporate rate is set to fall from 6.5 to 4 percent in 2020.
Meanwhile in Iowa, a package of reforms adopted last year will ultimately bring the top individual income tax rate to 6.5 percent (from 8.98 percent) and the corporate rate to 9.8 percent (from 12 percent),
Kentucky just replaced its graduated-rate individual and corporate income taxes with single-rate taxes of 5 percent. Even in Minnesota, legislators are contemplating tax cuts to offset additional revenue from tax conformity.
In short, Illinois would be raisings its tax rates at a time when its neighbors are headed in the opposite direction.
Tax Cliff
Tax rates are typically marginal, which is to say that they are imposed on marginal income. For instance, under the governor’s proposal, the first $10,000 in taxable income would be taxed at a rate of 4.7 percent, and someone earning $11,000 would only pay the higher rate of 4.9 percent on the additional $1,000, not the whole $11,000. According to handouts outlining Gov. Pritzker’s proposal, however, “[o]nce income reaches $1.0 million, entire income is taxed at 7.95 [percent] rate” (emphasis in original).
This creates a significant tax cliff, where a person making $1,000,000 pays $70,935 in taxes, while someone earning one dollar more pays $79,500, a difference of $8,565 on a single dollar of income.
Marriage Penalty
A marriage penalty exists whenever two earners owe more tax filing jointly than they would if they filed separately. The penalty can emerge when any part of the tax code—brackets, deductions, or exemptions—do not increase for joint filers, but bracket widths under a graduated-rate income tax are particularly important. Many states double their bracket widths for married couples to avoid the penalty, but the Illinois proposal envisions the same brackets for single and joint filers.
Bracket Creep
Within a graduated rate structure, inflation can impose a hidden tax, increasing the taxpayer’s liability as a greater share of their income is taxed even if that income has not increased in real terms, since bracket kick-in thresholds are fixed. To avoid this “bracket creep,” most states with graduated-rate structures index bracket widths and other features of the income tax to inflation. Pritzker’s proposal gives no indication of this, meaning that over time, taxpayers will pay an increasing amount of taxes as a percentage of income—even if their income has not increased in real terms.
Decline in Illinois’ Business Competitiveness
Every year, the Tax Foundation publishes a new edition of the State Business Tax Climate Index, a measure of state tax structure. Illinois currently ranks 36th overall, with its competitive income tax balancing out poor tax structure elsewhere. If, however, the state were to adopt the graduated rate structure Pritzker proposes, with top rates of 9.45 percent on pass-through income and 10.45 percent on corporate income, while creating a marriage penalty and forgoing inflation indexing, the state’s overall rank would plummet from 36th to 48th, ahead of only California and New Jersey.
Current vs Projected Illinois Tax Ranking
States should care about their Index ranking because it is measuring something real and economically meaningful—the competitiveness, or lack thereof, of the state’s overall tax structure. Were Pritzker’s proposal adopted, Illinois would trail its peers in just about every aspect of its tax code. If businesses and individuals are leaving the state now, these policies can only make the problem worse.
End Jared Walczak – Mish Comments
Progressives in Illinois have all but ruined the state. Pritzker seems bound and determined to finish off the job.
With House leader Michael Madigan fully in charge of legislation, Pritzker is poised to do just that.
Dictator of Illinois
The Illinois Policy Institute notes that Madigan has already broken the record for longest-serving state legislative speaker in U.S. history. No American has led a state House of Representatives longer than Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan. He has held the speakership for all but two years since 1983.
Democrats are responsible for this mess. No legislation passes without Madigan’s stamp of approval
Only One Thing in the Way
This proposal would easily succeed were it not for one simple fact. It requires a change in the Illinois constitution.
The constitution needs changing for sure but not in this direction.
Illinois desperately needs pension reform and bankruptcy reform. Instead, we have garbage proposals like this disguised under a “fair tax” label.
Constitutional Amendment
The Illinois Constitution can be amended either by Constitutional Convention (if 3/5 of the members in each House of the General Assembly agree to it, which voters can approve or disapprove) or by the General Assembly (if 3/5 of each house of the General Assembly approve the amendment, which is then submitted to the voters at the next general election).
The former won’t happen. It would open the door to genuine reform that Illinois needs.
Five Certainties
The amount the tax will cost each individual depends on personal finances. But here are five certainties.
The tax hike would depress job growth
The tax hike would raise taxes on the middle class
The tax hikes would encourage business flight
The tax hike would encourage flight of wealthy individuals
Since revenue projections won’t happen, Illinois progressives would seek still more tax hikes once the constitution allows for it.
Don’t Be Stupid
Here’s my message to Illinoisans: Don’t be stupid.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2TEo5jS Tyler Durden
Britain’s parliament is about to vote on Prime Minister Theresa May’s revised Brexit deal with the EU after rejecting her previous plan by a record margin in January.
Heading into the vote, cable is leaking back lower…
Here is Ransquawk‘s detailed layout of what to expect (and what happens next)
VOTE TIME:
Expected to begin at around 1900 GMT (1500 EDT, 2000 CET).
AMENDMENTS:
There are no amendments tabled, and as such, it will be a ‘clean’ vote on May’s Brexit plan.
VOTING MATHS:
There are 650 members of the UK House of Commons, seven Sinn Fein MPs do not vote, four speakers do not vote, and four MPs who count the votes do not vote themselves. PM May needs 318 votes to pass her deal, assuming all lawmakers (who are able to) vote, including: 10 DUP votes, up to 65 ERG votes (from a total of 110), up to 40 Labour leave votes, and 4 Independent votes.
VOTE MARGIN:
May’s Brexit bill was rejected overwhelmingly in January, by a margin of 230 votes (432 against vs 202 in favour). One theory is that if the margin of defeat is small, it may give May scope to make changes after the 21 March EU Summit, so the deal could be voted on again. However, ITV’s political editor suggested that the vote would be lost by more than 100, leaving little scope for May to introduce a third meaningful vote. Sky News analysis suggests UK PM May will lose tonight’s vote by more than 100 votes (projects 345 to vote against deal, 220 will vote for deal, 72 unknown).
AG COX:
UK AG Cox noted that while the path to exit the backstop is clear and binding, and the likelihood of a EU/UK disagreement in the arbitration process is low, and a unilateral right to exit the backstop was not achieved. NOTE: a unilateral right to leave was a key red-line for the ERG and DUP, the likely king-makers in the upcoming meaningful vote. The ERG and DUP have both therefore said that they will not back the deal; the DUP will directly vote against, but some members of the ERG may abstain from the vote (the latter is likely to be more beneficial to UK PM May).
* CHANCES OF PASSING TODAY:
Betting markets price in defeat for PM May. The implied probability of her deal passing fell to around 11% (vs 25-30% before the AG’s opinion was published. Accordingly, many desks say the base case is still for the deal to be rejected on Tuesday, a no-deal Brexit ruled out on Wednesday, and lawmakers will vote for the Article 50 process to be extended on Thursday.
* GBP SCENARIO 1:Meaningful Vote fails (Tue)/no-deal blocked (Wed/Thu)/vote to extend A50 passes (Wed/Thu) (likely). Barclays says initial GBP reaction would be negative. Focus will then shift to 21 March summit, where any signs of a longer extension could lead to a rally.
* GBP SCENARIO 2:Meaningful Vote passes (somewhat likely). Barclays says it could open the door for new post-referendum highs.
* GBP SCENARIO 3: All votes fail (unlikely). Barclays sees GBP real effective exchange rate -2.5% as markets price higher probability of no-deal Brexit. Focus then shifts to 21 March summit where GBP will be almost entirely sensitive to Brexit newsflow.
* GBP SCENARIO 4:meaningful vote fails/MPs vote for no-deal (highly unlikely): Barclays says GBP REER -5%.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? POSSIBLE ARTICLE 50 EXTENSION – 18/APR? 23/MAY? 23/Jun?:
If MPs vote to extend the Article 50 process, in addition to the UK’s approval, every EU member would be required to agree. The message from the EU has been mixed; while some think it is a sensible idea, others say the process should only be extended if there is a good reason for it.
Assuming that the EU agrees, the process could be pushed from the UK’s current Brexit leave date 29 March, to 18 April – the last day that the European Parliament can vote before breaking up ahead of May’s elections; the European Parliament has yet to even debate the Brexit deal, and has therefore not yet voted on it.
It is likely, however, that if the UK votes for what is available, EU lawmakers will likely follow suit. The current exit date is enshrined into UK law, and that would need to be changed; BBC says a push to 23 May has emerged as a possible new Brexit day to allow the UK two months to fully prepare itself for leaving, and this would also mean the UK departs ahead of the 23-26 May European Parliament elections.
IF no agreement between the UK and EU on the backstop is seen, a longer delay to exit become possible. A push to the end of June – 23rd is capturing imagines since it would coincide with the Brexit referendum anniversary – would be an admission that more time is needed, though new MEPs take their place in Parliament in early July, suggesting that nothing could be voted on until then at the very earliest, a scenario that not be ideal for either UK or EU.
If the process cannot be wrapped up by July, then scenarios of 2021 come into focus (EU officials are said to have mulled a delay until then, BBC reported), though this may not be palatable for Brexiteers, and thus, may split the government and lead to another strategy before then.
And if that wasn’t depressing enough for you, here are the thoughts of EU diplomats (via BBC’s Katya Adler):
“We’ve run out of ideas” EU diplomat tells me what EU could do if/when deal rejected tonight.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2F8gPEM Tyler Durden
The Army has completed a significant overhaul of its Interceptor Multi-Threat Body Armor System in the last several years and will field the first batch of next-generation helmets and protective gear beginning with the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division this month, according to a new report from Military.com.
“Our next-generation helmet — the [Integrated] Head Protection System — it has a 100% greater blunt impact protection over the … Enhanced Combat Helmet,” Lt. Col. Ginger Whitehead, product manager for Soldier Protective Equipment, said.
The infantryman from the 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, an infantry brigade based at Fort Knox, Kentucky, will receive the new Integrated Head Protection System (IHPS), along with the Soldier Protection System, such as the Modular Scalable Vest and Blast Pelvic Protector, said Col. Steven Thomas, project manager for Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment.
The new helmet, manufactured by Ceradyne Inc., utilizes advanced thermoplastic aramid and glass fabric composites, which provides better protection against a 7.62 Russian rifle round than legacy helmets and increases the amount of protection against high impact or trauma to a soldier’s head, according to Alex DeGroot, lead engineer for head protection.
“It’s less force on the brain; it’s a tremendous increase for us,” DeGroot said. “It’s actually one of the things that makes this helmet considerably better than the current [helmet].”
Whitehead said the fewer holes drilled into the helmet means better overall protection from high impacts.
The new helmet features a boltless retention system, which eliminates two holes on either side of the helmet, that the chin-strap assembly would be attached with special bolts, Whitehead said. The new helmet has just one hole in the front to attach the night-vision mount.
“The challenge with drilling holes in the helmet is that you weaken the material,” she said. “With this new helmet, we have gotten rid of the four holes drilled in the side.”
Whitehead added that each side of the helmet features removable side rails so that infantryman can mount tactical lights and headsets.
“You need the flexibility to have accessories on the helmet, particularly at night,” Whitehead said.
In addition to the IHPS, infantryman will receive the new Modular Scalable Vest and the Blast Pelvic Protector.
The Modular Scalable Vest weighs 11 pounds, based on a medium-size vest without ballistic plates. Fully equipped, the vest weighs 25 pounds, which is about five pounds lighter than current vests.
The new helmet and vest have undergone thorough testing among Army units over the last several years. This is all part of a modernization effort by the Pentagon to field infantryman with new body armor that can withstand a 7.62 round, traditionally used by Russia and China.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2O0t0WQ Tyler Durden
Joe Biden has made the decision to run for president in 2020, according to Tuesday article published by The Hill.
“I’m giving it a shot,” Biden reportedly said on a phone call with senior Democratic lawmakers, lending credence to long-running speculation that the 76-year-old former vice president and senator from Delaware would enter the crowded Democratic primary field.
A spokesperson told The Hill that Biden still has yet to make a final decision. However, this latest news, plus the numerous hints that Biden keeps dropping, make his announcement an almost forgone conclusion.
Should he choose to enter the race, Biden, who’s been in public office since the mid-1970s, has a lot of things going for him. The biggest pluses he has are probably high name recognition and his role as vice president in the still fondly remembered Obama administration.
Polls show Biden easily at the top of the field. The latest Monmouth poll has him at 28 percent support, compared to 25 percent for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt). A poll of likely Iowa caucus voters showed Biden with 27 percent, nearly tied with Sanders, and well ahead of the rest of the field.
Meanwhile, as the rest of the Democratic primary contenders are taking a sharp left turn in an effort to appeal to an energized progressive base, Biden’s comparative moderation and cross-party appeal could be seen as an asset to moderate Democrats, and even some progressive types, who are keen on beating Donald Trump at all costs.
He’s the Democrat Republicans are reportedly most worried about.
Still, it’s important not to overstate early polling, which often tests name recognition more than genuine popularity. Those same things that make Biden a popular name now could also sink his chances in a Democratic Party that is becoming increasingly intersectional and progressive.
Biden’s most recent gaffe was his decision to call current Vice President Mike Pence “a decent guy.” In the good old days, that might have been seen as a gentlemanly thing to do, something that might win you points for trying to rise above it all. In 2019, those remarks were seen as craven praising of the fiercely anti-LGBTQ Pence.
Biden eventually apologized for his remark, but he’ll likely run into similar problems with his defense of billionaires, who he says “aren’t bad guys.”
More significant are Biden’s past views on a number of hot button topics, including race and criminal justice, which his opponents will almost certainly hold his feet to the fire over.
Both the Daily Caller and the Washington Examiner have dug up Biden’s opposition in the 1970s to busing—a policy whereby school children were bussed to schools often far from their homes in order to create more a more racially integrated school system.
“I think the concept of busing…that we are going to integrate people so that they all have the same access and they learn to grow up with one another and all the rest, is a rejection of the whole movement of black pride,” said Biden in a 1972 interview as reported by the Examiner.
Biden was also the primary author of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (sometimes called the Biden Crime Bill) which increased federal sentences, created mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes, and dedicated more money to building prisons and hiring cops.
The bill is often blamed for the explosion in the prison population and leading to our current era of mass incarceration.
Earlier this year, Biden expressed regret for some of the mandatory minimums included in his bill, but it’s doubtful that level of contrition will be enough in the eyes of some voters.
Just four years ago, Biden wrote an essay for the Brennan Center on the 1994 crime bill in which he bemoaned cuts to police budgets, failed to mention anything about mandatory minimums, and included lines like “all life matters. And the fact that all life matters is the reason most officers became cops in the first place.”
Earlier this month the Huffington Postpublished an article detailing Biden’s opposition to anti-trust regulation in the 1970s and support for financial deregulation in the 1990s, two issues that economic populist like Sanders could use to rake him over the coals.
The former vice president is famous for engaging in some awkward, potentially over-the-line touching of women at public events, which is not necessarily a small issue in the #metoo era. At the very least, it could be an embarrassing thing to have to defend on a debate stage.
There’s also the chance that Biden, for all his folksy charm, just isn’t as exciting as other candidates in the race. He’s an older, white male in a party that is increasingly young and ethnically diverse. He’s got only a few big policy ideas in a party that is hungry for Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal.
Biden has yet to make a formal announcement, but that will likely be coming soon. Once he enters the race, there will be a lot of opportunity for him to clarify his positions, and for his opponents to attack his record.
How Biden handles that scrutiny will determine whether his 2020 run will be successful, or just flame out like his previous attempts.
The Democratic Party does not want to close the door to voting on migrants who broke our laws to get here and do not belong here, as these illegals would likely vote for pro-amnesty Democrats.
In all but one of the last seven presidential elections, Republicans lost the popular vote. George W. Bush and Donald Trump won only by capturing narrow majorities in the Electoral College.
Hence the grand strategy of the left: to enlarge and alter the U.S. electorate so as to put victory as far out of reach for national Republicans as it is today for California Republicans, and to convert the GOP into America’s permanent minority party.
In the Golden State, Democrats control the governors’ chair, every elective state office, both U.S. Senate seats, 46 of 53 U.S. House seats and three-fourths of each house of the state legislature in Sacramento.
How does the left expect to permanently dispossess Middle America?
Let us count the ways.
In 2018, over 60 percent of Floridians voted to expand the electorate by restoring voting rights to 1.5 million ex-cons, all of Florida’s felons except those convicted of sex crimes and murder.
Florida gave Bush his razor-thin victory over Al Gore. Should Trump lose Florida in 2020, he is a one-term president. If the GOP loses Florida indefinitely, the presidency is probably out of reach indefinitely.
Florida’s Amendment 4 is thus a great leap forward in the direction in which the republic is being taken. Gov. Terry McAuliffe of the swing state of Virginia restored voting rights to 156,000 felons by executive order in 2016, calling it his “proudest achievement.”
In California and Oregon, moves are afoot to reduce the voting age to 17 or 16. Understandable, as high schoolers are more enthusiastic about socialism.
Last week, a bold attempt was made by House Democrats to lower the U.S. voting age to 16. It failed — this time.
Some House Democrats apparently feel that with “Medicare-for-all” and the Green New Deal of Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez on the table, they have enough progressive legislation to satisfy the socialist base.
Thanks to Gov. Jerry Brown, every adult citizen in California who gets or renews a driver’s license, gets a state ID card, or fills out a change of address form with the Department of Motor Vehicles is automatically registered to vote. Purpose: expand voter rolls to include those who have shown no interest in politics, so they can be located on Election Day and bused to the polls.
Ari Berman of Mother Jones writes that Nancy Pelosi’s 700-page For the People Act that did pass the House contains “a slew of measures designed to expand voting rights, which … include nationwide automatic voter registration, Election Day registration, two weeks of early voting in every state … restoration of voting rights for ex-felons, and declaring Election Day a federal holiday.”
House Republicans offered an amendment to the bill with language that said, “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”
All but six Democrats voted against the GOP proposal.
The Democratic Party does not want to close the door to voting on migrants who broke our laws to get here and do not belong here, as these illegals would likely vote for pro-amnesty Democrats.
If the new U.S. electorate of, say, 2024, includes tens of millions of new voters — 16- and 17-year-olds; illegal migrants; ex-cons; new legal immigrants from Asia, Africa and Latin America who vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the political future of America has already been determined.
California, here we come.
As a Democratic insurance policy, Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen has introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
Some Republicans support statehood for Puerto Rico, which would add six electoral votes that would go Democratic in presidential elections about as often as Washington, D.C.’s three have, which is always.
Ben Franklin told the lady in Philadelphia, “We have a republic, if you can keep it.” Our elites today, however, ceaselessly celebrate “our democracy.”
Yet John Adams was not optimistic about such a political system: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”
Thomas Jefferson, a lifelong believer in a “natural aristocracy” among men, was contemptuous: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”
Madison wrote in Federalist 10, “democracies … have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
If one day not far off, as seems probable, tax consumers achieve a permanent hegemony over the nation’s taxpayers, and begin to impose an equality of result that freedom rarely delivers, the question of who should choose the nation’s rulers will be tabled anew.
We do not select NFL coaches or corporate executives or college professors or generals or admirals by plebiscite. What is the empirical evidence that this is the best way to choose a president or commander in chief?
Peoples are wondering that the world over, as our democracy does not appear to be an especially attractive stock.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Ji9GFQ Tyler Durden
President Donald Trump’s budget proposal would make vaping more expensive by targetting e-cigarettes with a new “user fee” intended to generate $100 million annually.
The tax would fund regulatory programs and public health campaigns run by the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products—despite the fact that there is no tobacco used in e-cigarettes, which instead use nicotine-laced fluids. Cigarettes, cigars, and chewing tobacco are already subject to the FDA’s user fees.
Extending those fees to e-cigarettes, the White House budget proposal says, is necessary to ensure that the FDA “has the resources to address today’s alarming rise in youth e-cigarette use.”
It’s true that vaping is on the rise amoung teens. According to last year’s National Youth Tobacco Survey, which is conducted annually by the Centers for Disease Control, 20.8 percent of high school students reported using e-cigarettes in 2018, up from just 11.7 percent in 2017.
But whether or not $100 million in new taxes on e-cigarettes will change that remains debatable, as does the more basic question of whether an increase in youth vaping is a public health problem at all. After all, e-cigarettes are far less dangerous than traditional, combustible cigarettes—as much as 95 percent less hazardous, according to some studies—and smoking rates among teenagers have continued to decline even as as e-cigarette use has surged.
As Reason‘s Jacob Sullum put it last year: “To the extent that teenagers who would otherwise be smoking are vaping instead, that should count as a public health victory.”
Indeed, by imposing the same taxes and regulations on e-cigarettes as traditional cigarettes, the Trump administration is aiming to treat the products as equals when they clearly are not. Making it more difficult and expensive to vape may cause more young people to take up smoking, and may make it more difficult for smokers who want to use e-cigarettes as a way to quit their unhealthier habit.
“If the intent here is to achieve tax parity between cigarettes and vapor products, that is a huge mistake and a massive giveaway to Big Tobacco,” says Liz Mair, a strategist for Vapers United, a nonprofit that opposes vaping taxes at the state and federal levels. “If your concern is improving public health, either as a matter of altruism and ethics or pure concern for taxpayers’ pocketbooks, your policy should generally be to keep vapor taxes much lower than cigarette taxes to incentivize people to try to quit smoking using them.”
Whether as a cash-grab or an attempt at nudging consumers towards healthier choices, the Trump administration’s proposed vaping tax seems like bad policy. Congress has a long history of ignoring the president’s budget in favor of writing its own—this is one idea that Congress should have no qualms about discarding.
Hell hath no fury like a woman who was promised a wall…
Conservative pundit Ann Coulter renewed her attacks on President Trump during a Monday night speech at the Kravis Center in West Palm Beach, Florida – where she railed against his lack of progress on a long-promised wall at the southern border, according to the Palm Beach Post.
Bemoaning how she has nobody to share her disappointment with, Coulter said: “It’s frustrating… I can’t talk to Trump detractors because, as the subtitle to my last book indicated, they’re insane. I can’t talk to the Trump flatterers because they think as soon as it comes out of his mouth, it has happened. No, he’s an excellent talker. It’s just when it comes to doing anything that he falls down on the job.”
Coulter – once a die-hard Trump supporter who visited him in the wake of his historic election win, has become a harsh critic of the president – calling him “gutless” on immigration in a December column. In February, she called Trump an “idiot” for declaring a national emergency to secure funding for the wall. Trump hit back, saying Coulter was “off the reservation” and that he hadn’t met with her in over a year.
On Saturday, Trump tweeted from Mar-a-Lago that Coulter was a “wacky nutjob” who “still hasn’t figured out” that he has been “winning” the war for the border wall – of which “major sections” are being built, while his administration has apprehended thousands of illegal immigrants.
Wacky Nut Job @AnnCoulter, who still hasn’t figured out that, despite all odds and an entire Democrat Party of Far Left Radicals against me (not to mention certain Republicans who are sadly unwilling to fight), I am winning on the Border. Major sections of Wall are being built…
….and renovated, with MUCH MORE to follow shortly. Tens of thousands of illegals are being apprehended (captured) at the Border and NOT allowed into our Country. With another President, millions would be pouring in. I am stopping an invasion as the Wall gets built. #MAGA
“I don’t know why he doesn’t just ignore me,” Coulter told the West Palm Beach crowd of roughly 600. “He doesn’t mind ignoring the rest of his base.”
Segueing to an attack on the media, Coulter said: “Trump may be a shallow, narcissistic conman, but that doesn’t mean the media are not the enemy of the people. Both things can be true,” adding that perhaps one positive outcome of Trump’s presidency might be the “total destruction of the lying media.”
Watch Coulter below:
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2TvOXTK Tyler Durden
“Medicare for all” sounds good and may make good electioneering slogan sense for presidential candidates like Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). It is a sales pitch to younger voters and will likely remain popular — at least until the public really understands what an expensive wrecking ball it is.
Keep in mind that no matter how many grants for research a medical center gets, it is really the surgeries and procedures that help pay for the academic side. Patients may not consider this factor until the heart surgeon or plastic surgeon they choose to perform their operation decides to leave for another country or a medical center’s latest new biochemical or promising genetic modulation can’t get sufficient funding for the research to be completed.
Rationing care and several weeks wait to obtain specialized care is sure to dampen innovation at a time of tremendous advances in robotics, genetic and immunotherapies.
If “Medicare for all” ever takes over here, personalized treatments will be difficult to obtain via a health-care system that will actually be closer to Medicaid than to Medicare in terms of quality. Keep in mind that 30 percent of today’s doctors already don’t take on new Medicaid patients because of lower reimbursements and rigid regulations.
This exorbitant price tag is going to have to be accompanied by a large tax hike.
Millions of jobs would be lost due to the collapse of the private health sector. And millions more, who obtain their health insurance from their employer (more than 170 million people), would not want to keep working their marginal jobs if they could get their health insurance “free” from the government. Keep in mind that 70 percent of those surveyed report being happy with the health insurance they receive from their employer. So there is in fact no pressing need to rip this away from them and force them to accept something else.
One of the most shocking pillars of the “Medicare for all” proposals being touted is the demolition of all private insurance. The resulting upheaval and displacement of health-care access across the board is the main reason that “Medicare for all” doesn’t have a chance of passing.
It is one thing to promote a basic government administered health insurance to reach the have nots; it is quite another to demolish all private insurance to paste up a prefabricated government one-size-fits-all product. The time and place to consider a massive socialized medicine program like “Medicare for all” is in a more primitive society without a well formed health-care system.
The destruction of the existing system and replacing it with a rigid government-run system with fewer choices might ultimately be cheaper in the long run but it would certainly be lower quality. Socialized health care across the board is not a good fit for America’s way of life. You may not be able to keep your doctor under ObamaCare, but at least you get to keep your health-care system. Not so with “Medicare for all.”
Of course, if “Medicare for all” ever passes, the senators and congressmen and congresswomen promoting it will quickly put together a plan to get their own high frills health coverage another way.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2J9iU7l Tyler Durden
While the Trump administration has very visibly made and modified plans to reduce U.S. military intervention in Syria and Afghanistan, it has quietly escalated the fight in Somalia against terrorist group al-Shabab. U.S. airstrikes in the North African nation are on the rise, and that higher pace of bombardment has contributed to increased civilian displacement and all the turmoil that comes with it.
But al-Shabab is hardly a significant threat to U.S. security. Its aims are provincial, and its numbers are few. This redoubled commitment to endless war should be immediately reversed. U.S. military intervention in Somalia is exacerbating political instability without contributing to the security of the American or Somali people.
This is a foreign policy failure in progress. If the last two decades of missteps in the Middle East and North Africa have demonstrated anything, it is that secretive wars of choice are prone to mission creep and rife with unintended consequences. Rather than expand, U.S. military intervention in Somalia should be shut down before it spirals into another needless generational conflict, writes Bonnie Kristian in her latest at Reason.
A group of activist students at Sarah Lawrence College calling themselves the Diaspora Coalition have released a long list of demands after occupying the campus’s main administrative building for 24 hours.
Joe Biden has made the decision to run for president in 2020, according to Tuesday 
President Donald Trump’s 
