Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category.
Gruber & Rhodes: Lying Politicians Are Old News, But Bragging About it Seems To Be An Obama Innovation
Does Ben Rhodes victory lap bragging about how he pulled the wool over the eyes of a stupid and gullible America on Iran remind anyone else of Jonathon Gruber? Remember these famous words from Gruber?
"You can't do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it’s written to do that," Gruber said. "In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not."
Even the justification is the same -- its OK to break the law and lie about it in order to break up gridlock. (By the way, my mother-in-law -- who tends to be a reliable gauge of mainstream Democratic thinking -- argued the same thing with me, that extra-Constitutional Presidential actions were justified if Congress did not accomplish enough. Asked about whether she was comfortable with the same power in a Trump administration, she was less sanguine about the idea).
While political lying is old as time, it strikes me that this bragging about it is a new phenomena. It reminds me of the end of the movie "Wag the Dog", when the Dustin Hoffman character refused to accept that no one would ever know how he manipulated the public into believing there had been a war, and wanted to publicly take the credit. In the movie, the Administration had Hoffman's character knocked off, because it was counter-productive to reveal the secret, but I wonder if in reality Obama is secretly pleased.
To All The Folks In the Past Who Told Me I Was Wasting My Vote When I Voted For Libertarian Presidential Candidates:
Do you still feel that way?
I look back on my original support for the war in Iraq and wonder how I made such a mistake. Part of it, I think, was getting sucked into a general nationalist enthusiasm that strikes me as similar in retrospect to the August madness at the start of WWI. But I also think I was scared away from the non-intervention position by the pathetic arguments and tactics adopted by some of the more prominent folks on the "peace" side of that debate. Ironically in college I experienced the flip side of this problem, often lamenting that the worst thing that could happen in any argument was to have someone incompetent try to jump in on my side.
I recall all of this because I was reading this post from Ken White where he is responding and giving advice to a student who was the subject of an earlier column. I really liked this bit:
We're in the middle of a modest conservative backlash and a resurgence of bigotry, both actual and arrested-adolescent-poseur. I believe a large part of this backlash results from the low quality of advocacy for progressive ideas. Much of that advocacy has become characterized by petulant whining and empty dogmatism. The message conveyed by too many of your generation is not that people should adopt progressive ideas because they are right or just, but that they should adopt them because that is what they are supposed to adopt because that is what right-thinking people adopt. That is irritating and ineffectual. Faced with an idea, I don't expect your generation to confront it. I don't expect you to explain how it's wrong, and win hearts and minds that your ideas are better. Rather, I expect you to assert that you should be protected from being exposed to the idea in the first place. That's disappointing and doesn't bode well for the success of progressive ideas (many of which I admire) in society. In short: if this is how you're going to fight for what you think is right, you're going to lose. Do better.
I find this election particularly depressing -- not just because the candidates are so disappointing (that has happened many times before) -- but because it has highlighted how large the anti-rational voter pool is, with both Sanders and Trump acting as attractors for them.
Most voters support some liberal policies and some conservative policies. Academics have long taken this as evidence of voters’ underlying centrism.
But just because voters are ideologically mixed does not mean they are centrists at heart. Many voters support a mix of extremeliberal policies (like taxing the rich at 90 percent) and extremeconservative policies (like deporting all undocumented immigrants). These voters only appear “centrist” on the whole by averaging their extreme views together into a single point on a liberal-conservative spectrum....
Donald Trump’s rise exemplifies these dangers.
Political scientists and pundits alike argue that it would improve governance to devolve political power from the political elites who know the most about politics and policy to the voters who know the least. Polarization scholars hold these uninformed voters in the highest esteem because they look the most centrist on a left-right spectrum. They are also Donald Trump’s base.
Yes, you read that right. Political scientists have long exalted the centrist wisdom of those who now constitute some of Trump’s strongest supporters — the poorly educatedauthoritarianxenophobes who are attracted to a platform suffused with white supremacy, indulge in unapologetic nationalism and use violence to silence opponents. As commentator Jacob Weisberg has written, these extreme voters’ views are a mix of “wacko left and wacko right” — the key credential one needs to qualify as centrist by scholars’ most popular definition.
A large part of the problem is the left-right political spectrum with which we are saddled. This spectrum was pushed on us by Marxist academics of the 1950's-1970's. It is meant to show a spectrum from really bad (with fascism at the far Right) to really good (with their goal of communism on the far Left)**. For some reason non-Marxists have been fooled into adopting this spectrum, leaving us with the bizarre scale where our political choices are said to lie on a spectrum with totalitarianism on one end and totalitarianism on the other end -- truly an authoritarians "heads I win, tails you lose" setup. In this framework, the middle, whatever the hell that is, seems to be the only viable spot, but Brookman is arguing above that the middle is just a mix of untenable extreme positions from the untenable ends of the scale.
The Left-Right spectrum is totally broken. Trump is unique in the current presidential race not because he appeals to centrists, but because he simultaneously demagogues both the Conservative civilization-barbarism language and the Liberal/Progressive oppressor-oppressed narrative. The fact that his supporters find appeal in extreme versions of both narratives does not mean they should average to centrists. A libertarian like myself would say that they are extremists on the far authoritarian end of the liberty-coercion axis (I, of course, am an extremist as well on the other end of this scale).
** Postscript: This is part of a long history of the Left trying to define political terms in their favor. I love the work on totalitarianism by Hanna Arendt, but you will sometimes hear academics say that Arendt was "repudiated" (or some similar term) in the 1960's. What actually happened was that a new wave of Leftish professors entered academia in the 1960's who admired the Soviet Union and even Stalin. They did not like Arendt's comparison of Nazism and Stalinism as being essentially two sides of the same coin, even though this seems obvious to me. Nazism and Stalinism were, to them, opposite sides of the political spectrum, from dark and evil to enlightened. Thus they dumped all over Arendt, saying that her conclusions did not accurately describe the true nature of life under communism. And so things remained, with Arendt pushed to the margins by Leftish academics, until about 1989. As the iron curtain fell, and new intellectuals emerged in Eastern Europe, they cast about for a framework or a way to describe their experience under communism. And the person they found who best described their experience was... Hannah Arendt.
I will begin by saying that I am the last one in the world to bemoan Congressional "gridlock". I have this argument all the time, but I just don't see that we Americans are facing some imminent shortage of laws and so lack of productive lawmaking by Congress doesn't pose any great problem for me. And gridlock certainly is not an adequate reason for rule by Presidential fiat, as I have seen argued a number of times in the past couple of years. There is no Constitutional clause allowing Executive action if Congress won't pass the President's preferred legislation. The narrow party split in Congress is a reflection of a real split in American voters -- gridlock on particular issues in Congress will pass, as it always has, when the electorate coalesces into a majority on the issue.
All that being said, I have always thought that the Senate's advice and consent functions should be exempt from the filibuster. Presidential appointments need to get an up or down vote in some reasonable amount of time. It is fine if the Senate wants to say "no" to a particular judge or appointment, but there needs to be a vote. I say this obviously in the context of the current Supreme Court vacancy. I am almost certain not to like Obama's appointment, so I say this now before I get tempted to move off my principles here in the exigency of politics. But not voting on a Supreme Court nominee for a full year is just stupid (btw Republicans, for all your love of the Constitution, show me anywhere in the document where it says "lame duck" presidents have less power). If Republicans want to run out the clock by voting down one candidate after another, then they can of course do that, and suffer the political consequences -- positive or negative -- of doing so. And suffer the future precedent as well (if a one year wait is the precedent now, what about 2, or 4, next time?) If Republicans wanted to pick Supreme Court nominees in 2016, they should have won the last Presidential election.
Politics is a multi-round game that goes on for decades and centuries. This is one reason the filibuster still exists. Both parties have come achingly close to eliminating it when they had slim majorities in the Senate, but both walked away in part because this was a move that worked for one round of the game (whatever vote was at hand) but has downsides in a multi-round game (where one's party will be in the Senate minority again and will want the filibuster back). It just infuriates me that the current participants in this game seem bent on making decisions that seem indifferent to future rounds of the game. GWB and Obama have both done this with expansions of executive power - the Left is cheering Obama on to govern by fiat but will they really be happy with these precedents in a, for example, Cruz administration? Ditto now with the Republicans and trying to run a full year off the clock on a Supreme Court nomination.
Postscript: By the way, the very fact a Supreme Court nomination is so politically radioactive is a sign of a basic governmental failure in and of itself. The libertarian argument is that by giving the government so much power to intervene in so many ways that creates winners and losers by legislative diktat, we have raised the stakes of minutes points of law to previously unimaginable levels. In a world where the government is not empowered to micro-manage our lives, a Supreme Court nomination would be as interesting as naming the postmaster general.
I don't know if you have ever had to write a check or sent a form to a county assessor, clerk, treasurer or the like. But the odds are that the forms you were working with did not tell you to send a check to "Loudon County Tax Assessor" but to something like "Mike Cambell, Loudon County Tax Assessor." There is absolutely no reason the assessor's personal name has to be on the check, or on the forms, or on the letterhead, or on the envelope, or on the return address. But it is. Because this is a way that small-scale elected officials have found to get free advertising and name recognition in their next election at taxpayer expense. It is an advantage they have structured as incumbents against any would-be challengers.
And it has real costs even beyond the artificial limiting of electoral competition. When the current assessor loses office, or retires, or just gets hit by a bus, all the printed materials in the office have to be thrown away as they all had his or her name on them and are thus obsolete. All new material has to be printed. Someone has to go in and manually edit every single form. The printer has to reset to make a new batch of return address envelopes and such. The bank needs to be notified that checks to the deposit will be addressed to a different person. It is crazy.
...Because the caucus process is absolutely backwards. It uses non-anonymous voting, for god sakes. Sophisticated democracies adopted anonymous voting centuries ago for really good reasons -- in particular it limited the ability to pressure people before and after their vote. So no one should be surprised that a stupid system without anonymity designed to allow voters to "persuade" people voting for someone else over to their side results in stories of coercion and fraud. Iowa should not be the first primary, not the least because of the damn ethanol issue but also because their process is archaic.
For a long time I have hypothesized (and worried) that the average Republican / Conservative's support for free markets was merely tribal -- the team's official position was pro-free market, so individuals supported the team's position without actually, really understanding it. I have developed this hypothesis after a lot of private discussions with Conservatives who have betrayed many of the same economic mis-conceptions and bits of ignorance that drive much bad interventionist government policy.
Speaking at Liberty University today, Trump escalated his rhetoric on Apple's overseas manufacturing, and claimed somehow the US would reclaim those jobs in the future. "We have such amazing people in this country: smart, sharp, energetic, they're amazing," Trump said. "I was saying make America great again, and I actually think we can say now, and I really believe this, we're gonna get things coming... we're gonna get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country, instead of in other countries."
So the Republican who is currently leading in the polls (among Republican voters, mind you) supports government intervention in a successful company's manufacturing and sourcing decisions. Which just reinforces my view that we are dealing with the Coke and Pepsi party. Heads we get statism, tails we get statism.
I don't want to give too much credence to Cruz's "New York values" dig on Trump. First, it's silly -- New York is not at all monolithic. Second, it doesn't really even apply to Trump, who often thumbs his nose at New York elite.
But I think that if you asked a lot of people in flyover country, the statement would still have resonance. I think the reason is that while New York is not at all monolithic in its culture and values, its media exports do tend to be much more homogeneous and tend to reflect a Left-liberal coastal condescension.
I was thinking about this watching the Broadway show If/Then which was in Phoenix this weekend. I thought this was a pretty forgettable musical, essentially a sort of remake of the movie "Sliding Doors", that was elevated by Idina Menzel in the lead. We in flyover country seldom get stars of this caliber (at least after they are famous) in our roadshows and she (along with one other female lead who was quite good) made the show worth the ticket.
Anyway, a couple of observations about the show in the context of Cruz's statement:
- No character in the show (with 2 exceptions) had a productive job in the private sector. Everyone worked in the city planning department or was a housing activist or a public school teacher. I kid you not, there was actually a song about the joys of urban planning. The two exceptions were: 1) a private architect who thanked the city planning department for overruling his designs and 2) an investment banker who acted like a complete tool and was included for 10 seconds only to illustrate the worst possible imaginable male date.
- Accusing a character of being a Republican was used as a laugh-line twice. Since the character was one the authors wanted to the audience to have sympathy for, the character quickly avowed he was an Independent.
- Living any place in flyover country (e.g. Nebraska, Arizona**) was used as a laugh line in the show and choosing to live in those places was offered up as an example of bad decision-making. The only place deemed acceptable to live outside of New York was Oregon.
I got over getting too worked up about this sort of stuff years ago (or else I would spend all my time holed up in a cave listening to a few old Rush albums). Cruz was wrong to criticize New York values but I think there is a .... call it an attitude that emanates from New York media that the rest of the country sometimes finds irritating.
** in the show we saw, the lead character had just escaped from a bad marriage in Phoenix. My guess is that this was not the original location, but was switched for the show here (though I could be wrong, since such a switch would have meant adjusting a couple of songs too). Anyone see it on Broadway and know what location was used there?
The media does not like people spending money to elect non-Democrats. That is the only conclusion I can draw from the fact that all of their articles on "dark money" seem to focus almost exclusively on the Koch brothers (who to my eye are more libertarian than Republican). One would get the impression that the Koch's are the #1 giver of money to election campaigns, but in fact according to OpenSecrets.org they were #14 in 2014 and #49 in all elections since 2002. Why wouldn't the media illustrate election-spending articles with someone in the top 10? It's as if the sports media spent all its time talking exclusively about quarterback Ryan Tannehill (14th in 2015 in NFL passing yards per game) without ever mentioning Tom Brady or Drew Brees.
If the Koch brothers deserve to be excoriated for their election spending, then the organizations that give more than they must really be evil, right? If one were cynical, one might think that the media ignores the top 8 or 10 because they mostly all give to Democrats. Well, here is the list from 2014 via OpenSecrets.org.
Update, from a reader and via Instapundit:
Consider this: in 2013, the left wing Center for Public Integrity reported that “Four foundations run by [the Koch brothers] hold a combined $310 million in assets…” By contrast, the Ford Foundation’s endowment is more than $12 billion — about 38x larger than the Koch Foundations.
On a list of the top 100 US Foundations (by asset size), the Ford Foundation is #2. The various Koch Foundations don’t make the list, nor do they make the list of top 100 Foundations by annual giving.
Yet, the news media and transparency groups constantly harp on the Koch’s massive organization and its “insidious,” “dark money” influence on American politics, while almost completely ignoring the far larger left-wing political Foundations.
In part, this is due to the perception in the media that money from conservative/libertarian/free market leaning organizations must be tainted, while funding from left-wing Foundations is free of such bias. It may also be due to the fact that the left wing Foundations fund many media organizations — I’m looking at you, NPR, PBS, Washington Post, LA Times and others — sometimes even funding them to cover “[other people's] money in politics.”
Postscript: If you really want dark, check out the website for hedge fund Elliott Management. There is not a single byte of information in the publicly accessible pages, only links to contact forms.
Campaign spending limits allow only the already-famous or the inflammatory populist to challenge incumbents...kindof like Trump @instapundit
— Coyoteblog (@Coyoteblog) December 31, 2015
Trump has spent virtually no money this campaign, so he should be the dream candidate of election finance reformers, right? @instapundit
— Coyoteblog (@Coyoteblog) December 31, 2015
I am out of the country (currently in Thailand for a wedding). I read this in the local Asian WSJ, an article about money and patronage in the Malaysian political process. And while I suppose I was supposed to think "wow, Malaysia is sure screwed up" -- all I was really left with at the end of this article was "how is this any different from the US?" How does 1MDB differ from, say, various green energy funds at the Federal level or community development funds at the local level?
Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak was fighting for his political life this summer after revelations that almost $700 million from an undisclosed source had entered his personal bank accounts.
Under pressure within his party to resign, he called together a group of senior leaders in July to remind them everyone had benefited from the money.
The funds, Mr. Najib said, weren’t used for his personal enrichment. Instead, they were channeled to politicians or into spending on projects aimed at helping the ruling party win elections in 2013, he said, according to a cabinet minister who was present.
“I took the money to spend for us,” the minister quoted Mr. Najib as saying.
It still isn’t clear where the $700 million came from or where it went. But a six-month Wall Street Journal examination revealed that public entities spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a massive patronage machine to help ensure Mr. Najib’s United Malays National Organization stayed in power. The payments, while legal, represented a new milestone in Malaysia’s freewheeling electoral system, according to ruling-party officials....
The effort relied heavily on the state investment fund Mr. Najib controlled, 1Malaysia Development Bhd., according to minutes from 1MDB board meetings seen by The Wall Street Journal and interviews with people who worked there.
The prime minister, who is chairman of 1MDB’s board of advisers, promised repeatedly that the fund would boost Malaysia’s economy by attracting foreign capital. It rolled up more than $11 billion in debt without luring major investments.
Yet Mr. Najib used the fund to funnel at least $140 million to charity projects such as schools and low-cost housing in ways that boosted UMNO’s election chances, the Journal investigation found.
The minutes portray a fund that repeatedly prioritized political spending, even when 1MDB’s cash flow was insufficient to cover its debt payments.
This illustrates one (of many) reasons why those lobbying to reduce campaign spending are on the wrong track. Because no matter how much one limits the direct spending in elections, no country, including the US, ever limits politicians from these sorts of patronage projects, which are essentially vote-buying schemes with my tax money.
The reason there is so much money in politics is because supporters of large government have raised the stakes for elections. Want to see money leave politics? -- eliminate the government's ability to sacrifice one group to another while subsidizing a third, and no one will spend spend a billion dollars to get his guy elected to public office.
By the way, in this current Presidential election we are seeing a vivid demonstration of another reason campaign spending limits are misguided. With strict spending limits, the advantage goes to the incumbent. The only people who can break through this advantage are people who are either a) already famous for some other reason or b) people who resort to the craziest populist rhetoric. Both of which describe Donald Trump to a T (update: Trump has spent virtually no money in this election, so he should be the dream candidate of clean elections folks, right?)
At some point in the election, based on some criteria I do not understand, a Presidential candidate crosses some threshold of seriousness and they are given Secret Service protection.
I have a similar idea. At some point in the election, candidates should have the ability to have a certain number of their proposals (spending, regulatory, tax plans) scored by the CBO, just as legislation is scored. Use of such services would not be mandatory, but I would assume that there would be a certain pressure to get one's own plan scored if one's opponent is waving around a scored plan.
CBO scoring has all sorts of problems, not least of which is the common trick of spending like crazy for 9 years and then inserting some huge imaginary savings in year 10 that makes the whole thing score as budget neutral. But folks will be able to see that (if they want to) and I think the advantage of being able to see actual costs and revenues of candidate plans in the same way they would be viewed as legislation (which presumably is the goal of candidate proposals, to turn them into real legislation) would outweigh these shortcomings.
I know that GOP partisans were mad about the questions asked last night. And I think they were right to be -- the questions looked a lot more like Democratic oppo research gotcha questions than issues Republican voters necessarily cared about in the election.
However, I think it is wrong to criticize Republican party leadership for the debate program. While it would be nice if some of the questions came from the Right, this is exactly the kind of testing their candidates will get in the general election. Wouldn't the Republicans like to know if their candidate can't handle the Leftish media headwind or if some gotcha question really turns out to be a solid hit to the vital organs -- before they are stuck with him or her?
This issue is related to one I have thought about for a while -- what I call the only silver lining from the current Progressive domination of college campuses. It may be an uncomfortable environment for libertarians, but they are going to come out of college (as I did) having endured 4 years of 20 on 1 political arguments. While progressives will only have experience chatting with other progressives in a warm fuzzy welcoming micro-aggression-free echo chamber. Which one will be better prepared do defend their ideas in the real world?
The West Has A Continuous History of Becoming more Liberal Only Because We Have Changed the Definition of "Liberal"
Kevin Drum writes, "the entire Western world has been moving inexorably in a liberal direction for a couple of centuries."
If this is true, it is only because the definition of "liberal" has changed. After becoming increasingly less authoritarian and intrusive and controlling for hundreds of years, government is again becoming far more authoritarian and intrusive. Only with a change in the definition of "liberal" over time can one consider attempting to ban, for example, the eating of certain types of foods as "liberal"
Until a few years ago, I would have said that Drum was right that there is a continuity of liberalization in the social realm. I celebrate the increasing acceptance of differences, from race to sexuality. But even here people who call themselves "liberal" are demanding authoritarian limitations on speech and expression, try to enforce a dictatorship of hurt feelings.
The whole post of his is a really interesting insight into the Progressive mind. Apparently, the (purported) lack of compromise in government is the fault of just one of the two sides. I am not sure how that is possible, but that seems to be the Progressive position (you will find an equal number of folks on the Right who believe the same thing, though they blame the opposite group).
Essentially, you can see in this post the strong Progressive belief that the default mode of government is to constantly generate new prohibitions, rules, strictures, taxes, regulations, and penalties. And that anyone who stands in the way of this volume production of new legal entanglements must be overcome, even if one has to break the law to do it.
A few days ago Matt Yglesisas wrote a #Slatepitch piece arguing that Hillary Clinton "is clearly more comfortable than the average person with violating norms and operating in legal gray areas"—and that's a good thing. In a nutshell, Democrats can't get anything done through Congress, so they need someone willing to do whatever it takes to get things done some other way. And that's Hillary. "More than almost anyone else around, she knows where the levers of power lie, and she is comfortable pulling them, procedural niceties be damned."
Unsurprisingly, conservatives were shocked. Shocked! Liberals are fine with tyranny! Today Matt responded in one of his periodic newsletters:
A system of government based on the idea of compromises between two independently elected bodies will only work if the leaders of both bodies want to compromise. Congressional Republicans have rejected any form of compromise, so an effective Democratic president is going to try to govern through executive unilateralism. I don't think this is a positive development, but it's the only possible development.
So Democrats are within their rights to lie, cheat and steal -- to do whatever it takes -- to break through the gridlock. I wonder: The worst gridlock this country has ever had was in the 1850's, when no compromise could be found on slavery. If Democrats are empowered today to lie, cheat, steal to break the gridlock, should they have been similarly empowered in 1850?
Of course, no one would want that. But it raises an important point. If you define the game as one with nietzsche-ist / Machiavellian rules, no one ever seems to consider that it is just as likely the other side will win as yours will. In fact, if you truly represent liberality, I am not sure this kind of anything-goes game is stacked in favor of the truly liberal players.
For folks who think that the end justifies the means here, and that we need to break the rule of law in order to save it, I would offer this paraphrase to an old saying: you can't sell your soul and have it too.
The people behind all of this were frightened of Muskie and that's what got him destroyed. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they're running against.
-- Deep Throat, in the movie "All the President's Men"
This is not the most amazing story I have ever heard told about political machinations, but it is perhaps the most amazing told by a sitting politician about her own actions. How Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill (proudly) manipulated the GOP primary to get the incredibly weak opponent she wanted. As told by ... Claire McCaskill.
It was August 7, 2012, and I was standing in my hotel room in Kansas City about to shotgun a beer for the first time in my life. I had just made the biggest gamble of my political career—a $1.7 million gamble—and it had paid off. Running for reelection to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat from Missouri, I had successfully manipulated the Republican primary so that in the general election I would face the candidate I was most likely to beat. And this is how I had promised my daughters we would celebrate.
Business licensing and awarding of government contracts is supposed to be entirely viewpoint neutral and related only to factors explicitly listed in the licensing legislation (e.g. training attained, cleanliness, whatever). Of course, I believe that licensing is generally total BS and is basically a way for incumbent businesses to restrict potential competitors and throttle supply.
Of course, defenders of licensing laws piously intone that they are only there to protect consumers and are enforced in a totally neutral way that has nothing to do with viewpoints or political pull (lol).
Trump is a complete loss as a candidate but he is at least proving once and for all what total BS this is. Both of the following are via the definitely indispensable Overlawyered.
If Donald Trump ever wants to build a hotel in Boston, he’ll need to apologize for his comments about Mexican immigrants first, the Hub’s mayor said.
“I just don’t agree with him at all,” Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh told the Herald yesterday. “I think his comments are inappropriate. And if he wanted to build a hotel here, he’d have to make some apologies to people in this country.”
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said Monday that his city may not be able to break its business contracts with Donald Trump but will avoid future deals with the 2016 GOP contender.
"My impression is that unless there has been some breaking of a contract or something that gives us a legal opportunity to act, I'm not sure we have a specific course of action," the Democratic mayor told reporters Monday, according to CNN and Capital New York.
"But we're certainly not looking to do any business with him going forward," de Blasio added.
De Blasio indicated Monday that he has yet to receive a final analysis on whether the city could get out of several contracts with Trump, a celebrity real estate developer turned presidential candidate.
New York City officials began reviewing the contracts, including a Central Park carousel, two rinks and a Bronx golf course, several weeks ago in light of Trump's controversial remarks on immigrants.
I am increasingly convinced all this "libertarian moment" stuff is a pile of crap. I am watching the two Presidential candidates garnering the most attention, and incredibly the least bad of the two is an out-of-the-closet Marxist.
Last night on NBC news they were discussing the mass murder in South Carolina. The network interviewed some guy (sorry, missed his name) who lamented that -- can you believe it -- South Carolina doesn't even have a hate crime law!
And my response was: So what? I imagine that there may be circumstances where a hate crime law somehow might provide for a more appropriate punishment or better deterrence for some sort of crime. Maybe for ordinary assaults? But how in the world is it relevant to the punishment of some asshole who just got caught red-handed killing 9 people. The guy could not possible be more legally f*cked. What, is there some possibility of confusion that without the hate crime law, someone might think it was OK to kill 9 people?
I get exhausted with this kind of stupid symbolism. In this case, the call for hate crime laws is not aimed at criminals, but are being used by politicians to signal to certain groups of voters that they "care." This is the kind of zero-cost, zero-benefit "caring" that politicians specialize in.
Deborah Vollmer appears to be a nightmare neighbor in this story from the Washington Post (via Maggie's Farm). She is absolutely hell-bent on preventing her neighbor from doing anything to their house that she would not do to it. If her neighbor's aesthetics don't match hers, she takes them to court.
“Some people may question my motives,” Vollmer said. “But what’s happening in this town, these developers, tearing down old homes. I’m standing up for my rights. . . . And then this whole thing just kind of evolved” from that...
What could possibly be driving this woman? Friend and Chevy Chase resident John Fitzgerald said that her stubborn streak has roots deep in her past. Vollmer forged her career defending the rights of those without means. And that, he said, inculcated in her a desire to protect principles until the bitter end.
What right or principle is she fighting for? The right to micro-manage her neighbor's property. Read the article, this woman seems to be a total nightmare, all because she wants everyone else's house to look exactly like hers.
She should move to California. She would fit right in. She would be a perfect candidate to sit on the California Coastal Commission, for example.
We have a sort-of similar fight brewing here in Phoenix where a few local residents were trying to prevent another resident from tearing down and rebuilding his tired old house, which happened to have been designed by Frank Lloyd Wright's studios. I appreciate Mr. Wright's work, but also know he designed some unlivable crap. He was an artist, experimenting, and sometimes the experiments were not great. He was also a businessman, always short of money, and sometimes his projects did not get his full artistic attention. In my view, this was such a house.
I have the same answer for Ms. Vollmer that I do for those Wright house enthusiasts -- if you want to control a piece of property, buy it. If you don't have the money, encourage other people to chip in. But if you can't get enough people who similarly value your vision for the property to fund its acquisition, don't take the shortcut of using your influence with the government to impose the cost on taxpayers, or worse, on the individual property holder.
The brief time I led the Equal Marriage Arizona efforts to amend the Constitution to allow gay marriage was a real eye-opener for me. I expected that since I was not a member of the largest gay activist groups, I might have to work to build up trust. But it turned out, trust was not an issue. I seldom had anyone question my sincerity. However, I quickly found all the major gay rights groups (excepting the ACLU, bless their hearts) not just neutral or skeptical but actively opposing our effort. Several people in these organizations dragged me in the figurative back room and explained that the leadership of their group would never accept a non-Democrat getting credit for such a success. And one member of prominent organization (hint: has same initials as Hillary Rodham Clinton) told me that their internal position was that they did not want gay marriage to come to Arizona until after 2016 because they wanted Hillary to be able to run on the issue and hoped to flip AZ blue in 2016.
So, a couple of years ago I would never have believed this story, but now it seems all too familiar
Just this week, legislators introduced a bill that would encourage drug companies to apply to sell contraceptives without a prescription.
But if Republican Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, along with four other GOP senators, were expecting flowers from Planned Parenthood and others for their bill, the Allowing Greater Access to Safe and Effective Contraception Act, they should brace for disappointment. Suddenly, the idea doesn’t sound so great, and the former supporters aren’t mincing words.
Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said the bill is a “sham and an insult to women.”
Karen Middleton of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado even got personal, saying, “Cory Gardner can’t be trusted when it comes to Colorado women and their health care.”...
Beneath the fear-mongering lies the more likely reason for the change of heart on the left. The bill was simply introduced by the wrong party.
Like Harry Reid, Denny Hastert entered Congress as barely middle class and left it a multi-millionaire (Senators make $174,000 a year -- good money but not enough, I would think, to have $3.5 million tucked away to hand out as cash).
It wasn’t long after that the Sunlight Foundation reported on just how much Hastert thought himself qualified to steer earmarks back home. The foundation found that Hastert had used a secret trust to join with others and invest in farm land near the proposed route of a new road called the Prairie Parkway. He then helped secure a $207 million earmark for the road. The land, approximately 138 acres, was bought for about $2.1 million in 2004 and later sold for almost $5 million, or a profit of 140 percent. Local land records and congressional disclosure forms never identified Hastert as the co-owner of any of the land in the trust. Hastert turned a $1.3 million investment (his portion of the land holdings) into a $1.8 million profit in less than two years.
Robert Robb has an interesting piece in our paper today about the challenges in defeating even a deeply flawed Joe Arpaio in the Republican primary. In doing so, he reminds us of some (but by no means all) of Arpaio's worst characteristics, and makes a good case for why dark money in elections makes sense:
The missing element in the anti-Arpaio coalition is actually the business community.
Arpaio's war chest doesn't have to be matched. But making the case against him would require a campaign in the $2-$3 million range, beyond the reach of what an opponent is going to be able to raise.
If Arpaio is to be defeated, the business community probably has to conclude that he's enough of a damaging menace to warrant funding an independent campaign in that range. But the money isn't the only hurdle.
With Arpaio, there's a risk of criminal investigations and bogus criminal charges if you oppose him. That's part of what makes him a damaging menace. So, any such independent campaign would likely have to be by a dark-money group that didn't disclose its contributors.
It would be fascinating to watch the dark-money scolds react to a dark-money campaign to defeat Arpaio while protecting donors against his documented retaliatory proclivities.
I think any opposition to free speech, particularly as exercised in an election, is unseemly, but Hillary Clinton's attacks on the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision are particularly so.
Why? Well to understand, we have to remember what the Citizens United case actually was. Over time, the decision has been shorthanded as the one that allows free corporate spending in elections, but this was not actually the situation at hand in the case. I could probably find a better source, but I am lazy and the Wikipedia summary is fine for my purposes:
In the case, the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA"). Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions.
Yes, the Supreme Court generalized the decision to all corporations and unions (good for them) but the narrow issue in the case was whether an independent non-profit group could air a negative film about Hillary Clinton in the run-up to an election in which she was a candidate.
So when Hillary Clinton derides the Citizens United decision, she is arguing that the government should have used its powers to suppress a film critical of her personally. She is trying to protect herself from criticism.