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, COVID, ECONOMY, POLITICS
I was annoyed to read an article as ridiculous as Alan Blinder’s “Will Congress Ever Break the Covid Relief Standoff?” in which Blinder puts the blame on Senate Republicans. In fact, the entire premise of the article is that “Senate Republicans resist passing a new bill, even though it’s needed and politically expedient.” But this is simply untrue, and shows the great lengths to which Blinder omits key facts in order to advance the narrative that the Republicans are at fault.
A few days ago, Senate Democrats declined to consider a $500 billion COVID package put forth by Senate Republicans. 52 Republicans (all except Rand Paul) voted to advance the bill, but without one single Democrat vote, the measure died. According to the rules of the Senate, having a majority that included nearly 100% of the Republicans isn’t enough to pass the bill; by invoking cloture (requiring 50 votes to override) they prevented the bill from even being debated. But did Blinder mention this at all in his article? Absolutely not. Instead, he describes how the Senate Republicans “resisted” passing a new bill, because not caving to the $3 trillion relief package offered by the Democrats is somehow an act of resistence.
Blinder continues this ridiculous idea, saying “progress has been blocked” by McConnell. How? The Democrat $3 trillion relief package version (the Heroes Act) contained “items that Republican abhor,” and this somehow makes it the Republican’s fault? And yet, in the very same paragraph, Blinder describes how the Heroes Act itself “was just an opening bid, which House Democrats never expected Senate Republicans to embrace.” This brings to mind two questions: 1) why are the Democrats crafting a bill that they willfully acknowledge they didn’t expect to pass; and 2) why are the Democrats given a free pass to craft a bill (they don’t expect to pass) at the high end of the spending spectrum, but when the Republicans craft a bill at the low end of the spending spectrum, it’s considered a “political stunt.”
Blaming Republicans for causing problems (resisting) because their bill, which the Democrats described as “emaciated,” did not have the right kind of Democrat spending, is outrageous. Such nonsensical hypocrisy and patent lies should not be tolerated.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, POLITICS
I was shocked to read “Get Ready for the Biden Stock Boom” in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, written by a former editor of Barron’s, no less. Ed Finn really, really wants you to support Joe Biden and his article is full of so much wishful thinking that it reads like a Disney Fairy Tale — except in reality, there will be no happy ending.
To be fair, Ed Finn does acknowledge that the stock market will certainly experience some turbulence if Joe Biden is elected — but that’s because smart investors know that socialist policies are coming in the form of higher taxes, strangling regulation, and ridiculous legislation such as the “Green New Deal.” You think Obama was bad for the economy? Wait until Biden gets in there.
Yet after laying out the coming economic reality, Ed Finn still wants you to believe in Joe Biden, and the rest of his analysis is basically dependent on the word IF. You can’t make this up:
“IF a President Biden can control the federal budget deficit, IF he can forge better relationships with America’s trading partners, IF he can reverse some of President Trump’s anti-immigration policies, IF he can bring a less combative atmosphere to Washington and the nation, there is no reason to think that during his term average annual stock returns, including dividends, can’t be in the 10% range, as they have for the past 95 years.”
It should be noted that even with all the “if’s” coming true, they have no positive economic consequence. They would be nice, but not economically powerful.
How does he spell out how Joe Biden’s going to improve the economy: “Given Mr. Biden’s ambitious plans to use increased tax revenue to fund more spending on green energy, health care and infrastructure, it’s conceivable he could spur the U.S. economy enough to push annual stock returns to 15%.” Ed Finn must think that the readers of the Wall Street Journal are stupid. To think that anything relating to “green energy” isn’t detrimental to the economy is economically illiterate. We already have efficient fossil fuels, but the Democrats would happily pay three times as much for less energy to be environmentally woke — and that’s supposed to improve the economy? That’s either ignorant or socialist or both. And see how Finn continues to use wishful language: “it’s conceivable he could spur the U.S. economy enough to push annual stock returns to 15%.” That’s because neither Finn’s analysis nor Biden’s policies are actually grounded in any sort of economic reality, only fantasy.
On the other hand, what we do know is that there are multiple policy proposals that WILL have negative economic consequences, none of which will come close to offsetting any of the rosy positives that Finn is pinning his hopes on. The main threats Biden poses to the stock market are increased regulation and higher taxes. Increased regulation will inevitably result in slowed economic growth, and with that decreased profits and a less robust stock market. But that’s not even the worst of it. Two specific initiatives will affect the stock market both in the short- and long-term: 1) Raising taxes on corporate profits from 21% 28% and 2) Nearly doubling the capital-gains tax from 20% to 39.6% on income over $1 million/year — and don’t forget the investment-tax surcharge of 3.8%! Of course, Biden plans to raise taxes on nearly every taxpayer regardless.
Ed Finn ought to be ashamed for penning such an unrealistic economic outlook with Joe Biden at the helm. Increased taxation, crushing regulation, and impudent legislation never improves the economy or the lives of the American people.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY
I was disappointed to read “How the Bidens Dodged the Payroll Tax” last week in the WSJ, not because Biden is a good guy, but because the author of the screed, Chris Jacobs, gets it all wrong. Those of you who read my columns regularly know that I’m no fan of Biden, but in this case, Biden is in the right. There is nothing legally wrong with how he structured and paid his taxes – to the contrary, it elucidates an ongoing tax inequity that was completely missed in the article.
In order to understand what Biden did and didn’t do, you need to understand a little bit about s-Corps, LLCs, partnerships, and Social Security taxes. Foremost is that Social Security taxes are imposed on individuals’ earned income – salaries for employees and earned business income for independent earners. It is a tax on earned income — and only earned income. It’s money contributed from your work that goes into your retirement social security pension, not your business profits, interest and dividends income, capital gains or anything else. Social security is calculated from your working history, because you are taxed only on your earned income. That’s why it’s dubbed the payroll tax.
So now let’s look at some different scenarios. Say you work for a business operated as a C corp or S corp, and you also are a stockholder in that business. The money you get as a stockholder — such as dividends–is not working income so you do not pay the Social Security tax. But the money you earn on your labor for your work in this company – salary – up to $137,700 (for 2020)- is subject to the social security tax.( Amounts earned over the $137,700 is still subject to the much smaller Medicare Tax).
But it gets more complicated when you consider partnerships (or LLC’s which are taxed as partnerships). If you work for and are also an owner of a partnership, your share of the partnership income – both for your labor and share of profits are included in one number reported to you on a K-1 form. And the full amount is subjected to the social security tax. For instance, say you are a 50% owner of an architecture partnership and the firm makes $2 million, you would get a K-1 form showing $1 million. Though that would be for both labor and profit, you would have to pay Social Security tax on the full amount.
But if you are structured as an s-Corp, you pay yourself a salary. If the architecture firm were an s-Corp and it earned $2 million and each shareholder received a $400K salary and netted $600K in profit, they only pay the Social Security tax on the earned income, the $400K. And this is exactly what Biden did. He paid tax on his earned income.
So with an S-corp, you have cleared defined salary and (hopefully) profits. It is conceivable that, in Biden’s case, his salary was too low. That is a bit unclear. But what is absolutely clear is that the business is not all labor and therefore he should not be paying Social Security on the full amount. The problem, therefore, isn’t that Biden did something wrong or that he used an S-Corp “loophole” to “get away with” only paying tax on some portion of the business. The problem is that just because someone is a business owner should not mean that he has to pay social security tax on his business profits. Remember Social Security is a tax only on earned income and thus Biden rightly paid the Social Security tax only on his salary. The real problem is that partnerships, unlike their C-corp and S-corp counterparts, have to unjustly pay the full Social Security tax on both their labor and profits. This is the real problem with the tax code that has needed reform for many years. Biden and Trump would do well to address this inequality in the future.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, POTUS, TRUMP
When I read commentary by people associated with the Club for Growth — known for promoting the rule of law, low taxes, small government, low tariffs, economic growth, etc. — I expect to find analysis consistent with their principles. Therefore, the recent CNS News article on 8/10, “American Manufacturers Come Back, Thanks to Trump,” took me completely by surprise because it was essentially the rantings of someone who is economically ignorant. Ken Blackwell, former elected official in Ohio and current member of the Board of Directors for the Club for Growth advocates for protectionism, pure and simple.
Blackwell praises how Trump instituted “strategic counter-tariffs on bad actors such as China to combat the effects of illegal and abusive trade practices that previously put companies like Whirlpool at an unfair disadvantage.” But this pro-tariff position runs counter to any competent economic analysis. Tariffs clearly and consistently hurt the consumer and taxpayer by driving costs up to everybody in amounts far in excess than any benefits given to those crony beneficiary companies. To call a tariff a “pro-growth economic policy” as Blackwell does is utterly ridiculous, and his entire article reads like a cheap campaign ad.
Tariffs don’t “strengthen” American manufacturers as Blackwell believes; it is cronyism of the highest order. How the Club For Growth — as well as the National Taxpayers Union — can have someone on the board with views that are economically ignorant and destructive to our economy is beyond comprehension.
