JustOneMinute

Lots Of News

So much news, so little time...

Elizabeth Warren's Latest Worst Idea Yet

What America needs to do to spark the economy and restore social justice is subsidize its college graduates and the schools that churned them out. Or so says Elizabeth Warren, who wants to spend $640 billion on debt relief for folks who owe money on student loans, and another $585 billion on free college for all (or mostly free for most) going forward. All paid for by her proposed (and Constitutionally dubious) "wealth tax".

What's to like? Well, as a random wealth redistribution scheme this is impressive. Folks who wrote their final loan payment a year or two ago should not have been so hasty. People who took summer jobs instead of borrowing? They shoulda gone to the beach!

Frankly, fine-tuning this aspect of the "Make It Rain" cash toss would not be difficult: marshal loan and tax records going back ten years ad compensate everyone, including those who sacrificed previously in order to pay their voluntarily undertaken debt.

But there are thoughtful progressives who wonder whether we can find even better uses for the wealth tax jackpot then subsidizing college grads. Here is Mayor Pete in the NY Times:

The idea has been dismissed by some more moderate candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president, like Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.

“Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t,” Mr. Buttigieg said while addressing college students in Boston. “As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidizing a minority who earn more because they did.”

The NY Times found some "conservative and libertarian" think tanks (Manhattan Institute and Cato) making similar points. They missed the left-leaning Urban Institute, as presented by CBNC and on Twitter:

While experts who study student loan debt say widespread forgiveness would boost the economy, some question whether it is the most effective way to stimulate the economy — or the best method to ease the strain on the borrowers who need relief most. Backlash could even come from the political left, as blanket debt relief is expected to benefit people with higher incomes who borrowed more to get advanced degrees.

“I think you also are going to see some concerns from the left that if you are wiping out all the debt, that that would be a pretty regressive thing to do,” said Matthew Chingos, the vice president of education data and policy at the Urban Institute. “And once you look at the numbers, this looks like the Trump tax cuts in terms of who it benefits. So it’s a little hard to be out there saying, well, ‘I’m against tax cuts for the wealthy, but at the same time I want to give this big handout to the wealthy.’”

There are undoubtedly issues with the student debt market. Do let me add - if borrowers take seriously the idea of debt forgiveness in a year or two, they are likely to increase the delinquency rate today. And a particular problem with student debt is experienced by those who borrowed but never completed a degree program. They are not earning the premium associated with a college degree, so repayment is a problem, so a special look at that makes sense.

However, an earnest progressive might imagine other uses for the $640 billion Sen. Warren is targeting for (mostly) college grads. What could be done with $64 billion a year for ten years, a conventional CBO horizon? Well the current budget for the Department of Education is $68 billion - why not double it? Putting more money into K-12 public education might be a much better investment in social justice. 

We spent $668 billion annually (2014-15, Federal, state ad local) on public K-12 education. An extra $64 billion would be a 9.5% increase. New York City has roughly 1 million (2%) of the nation's 50 million public school students. Give them 2% of $64 billion and they can increase their annual spending by $1.3 billion on a budget of $24 billion. Mayor deBlasio could probably find uses for the money. Or we could give some of the money to AOC, who used her economics degree to score a job as a bartender and is bemoaning her $25,000 debt burden. Well, her new income will partially disqualify her, but only partially.

Well. Moving away from education, maybe progressives could identify unmet, unfunded opportunities with worker retraining, opioid treatment centers, or other programs that might benefit the working- and under-classes, rather than college grads, professors and administrators. OTOH, if Elizabeth Warren hopes to muster an army of student volunteers and see a flurry of "Great idea" endorsement from leading academics, she is on the right path.

Unexpected Candor In The New York Times

Sen. Kamala Harris has a pen and a phone and she's not afraid to shriek into it! The NY Times explains that she won't pin her hopes for gun control on Congress and will rely on executive orders. They include this surprisingly candid assessment (my mockery):

The executive actions would also include more strident regulation of gun manufacturers...

SpelChechnyan is an uncertain ally. Although I guess I should roll the videotape before concluding this was a mistake.

TRUST BUT VERIFY: I actually will be happier when the Times correct this, but meanwhile...

Send Better Watchdogs

Appearing on Meet The Press, Rep. Jerry Nadler explained he wants Don Trump Jr. indicted. However, he seems to be inventing facts:

What [Mueller] couldn't prove, was that there was -- beyond a reasonable doubt, was that there was a criminal conspiracy, although, in the one case, I do not understand why he didn't charge Don Jr., and others in that famous meetings with criminal conspiracy. Because they were -- he said that he didn't charge them because you couldn't prove that they willfully intended to commit a crime. Well, you don't have to prove that. All you have to prove for conspiracy, is that they entered into a meeting of the minds to do something wrong and had one overt act. They entered into a meeting of the minds to attend a meeting, to get stolen material on Hillary. They went to the meeting. That's conspiracy, right there.

A "meeting to get stolen material on Hillary"? Not according to the email chain, the original NY Times story, or anything I noticed in the Mueller report. Trump Jr. was offered "official documents" held by a Russian prosecutor.

From the story:

The precise nature of the promised damaging information about Mrs. Clinton is unclear, and there is no evidence to suggest that it was related to Russian-government computer hacking that led to the release of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails.

...

The initial email outreach came from Rob Goldstone, a British-born former tabloid reporter and entertainment publicist who first met the future president when the Trump Organization was trying to do business in Russia.

...

“Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting,” Mr. Goldstone wrote in the email. “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.”

He added, “What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?”

There is no such title as crown prosecutor in Russia — the Crown Prosecution Service is a British term — but the equivalent in Russia is the prosecutor general of Russia.

Hmm. "Official documents" held by a state prosecutor would be an odd way to describe hacked emails.

So if the meeting was not an attempt to haggle over stolen goods, just what criminal conspiracy charge does Rep. Nadler imagine? 

I have no idea either. Great follow-ups from Chuck Todd, btw, who lets this seemingly obvious point slide.

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows

Giuliani: "There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians".

Weird. I did not expect to see Rudy riding to Hillary's defense.

Happy Easter

The traditional Easter Sunday open thread. I don't think reading the news will improve my mood so I may boycott reality (or the Times version of it) for a few hours.

As I Trudge Through The Mueller Report...

As I page through the Mueller report I cannot shake an alternative script: The DNC learns they've been hacked, probably by the Russians. Embarrassment looms! Unless... what if, suggests some bright light at Democratic or Hillary headquarters, we can link the Russian hackers to the Trump campaign? Then the emails and documents (eg, Hillary's Goldman Sachs speech) become toxic, Trump is a Russian stooge and the media will cover for us!

This sets the Maltese Phantom in motion against George Papadopoulos, and away we go. Obviously, the plan was not a complete success, even though (IIRC) the Democrats did manage to get leaks of the investigation into the media before the election.

That sort of hypothetical scheming answers one of the glaring questions of the whole story - why not just ask Team Trump WTF was going on? George P had not been with the Trump campaign long enough for his coffee to get cold and was away from the action in London. Who in their right mind could have thought that the Trump inner circle would protect him rather than drop him? Or, if they did not drop him, that would be revealing.

Obviously we (and Andrew McCarthy) have the same questions about Carter Page, who had previously cooperated with the FBI - why not just ask?

Well. As a straw in the wind, the NY Times splashes some ink today on the likelihood of renewed scrutiny of the Steele dossier and the FISA warrant is spawned.

Easter Weekend

It's Easter Weekend so let me take a break from my customary media-bashing and instead segue to Easter-related media-bashing.

Kathleen Parker still wears the crown for this "Christ has died, Christ has... hmm, my latte is cold" moment, from back in the days when Ted Cruz was hoping to win Iowa (he did!):

One observation. I don’t know… this seems to have slipped through the cracks a little bit but Ted Cruz said something that I found rather astonishing. He said, you know, “It’s time for the body of Christ to rise up and support me.” I don’t know anyone who takes their religion seriously who would think that Jesus should rise from the grave and resurrect himself to serve Ted Cruz. I know so many people who were offended by that comment.

Ms. Parker later went with a "JK!" defense. Yeahk yeah - they laughed when she said she was going to try her hand at television comedy, but they're not laughing now.

That pleasant flashback was inspired by recent Times coverage of the disaster at Notre Dame, here mocked by Alex Griswold of the Free Beacon:

A Priest Saved ‘The Body of Christ’ From Notre Dame, and NY Times Thought He Meant a Statue

Sweet, uhh, jiminy.

I AM WEAK, I AM FALLEN... A better man would resist but since we're talking resurrection let me flash forward to Memorial Day and backward to happier times.

 

Bracing For Mueller

Keep your reading glasses handy! The 400 page Mueller report is due at, presumably with the 9:30 AM (Eastern) press conference.

The only certainty: in those 400 pages there will be material that inspires the "Impeach Now!" crowd as well as material that enrages those who want the senior FBI and DoJ leadership who instigated and this investigation locked up.

The first casualty of 24/7 media (and Twitter) is context.

Peter Pan For President

The WaPo puzzles over the popularity of Mayor Pete, now third in polling behind Biden and Sanders; Ann Althouse summarizes.

My take: Democrats always pine for the next JFK. They want a candidate who is young, charismatic, smart, and unburdened by a legacy of policy decisions that might antagonize one faction or another. The attractive blank slate! Past players in this role include Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, John Edwards, and of course Barack Obama. (John Kerry sort of fits the template as well. As the war hero who turned war against the war and did nothing thereafter, Kerry induced a 60's flashback that made everyone else feel young again, so he had that going for him.)

What I find more interesting is whether Mayor Pete and Beto can survive each other's presence in the same lane.

Just Awful In Paris

Notre Dame burns.

On the life/lemonade spectrum, no one was hurt and this will give France, and much of the world, an opportunity to unite for a worthy cause. I don't know how much expertise the US can contribute but we will surely pitch in.

Furthermore:

A French firefighter official told reporters the main structure of the cathedral has been saved and the two iconic main towers are intact and have been saved as well.

Here's hoping this was just a dreadful construction accident and not terrorist-inspired. There does seem to be a slight possibility that some wave of attacks on Catholic churches in France has been underway, although evidence free speculation is inappropriate.

Two Weeks Too Late

The NY Times celebrates Tax Appreciation Day with one of their dumber guest pieces ever.

Everyone’s Income Taxes Should Be Public

Disclosure of tax payments would make it easier to hold politicians accountable. It also would help to reduce fraud and economic inequality.

Say what? The NSA is hoovering up my cell phone metadata in an attempt to track terrorists and the Time freaks out, but publish everyone's tax returns? Great idea!

Social scientists would love this, and maybe we would move closer to Equal Pay For Equal Work if people knew each other's paychecks.

But as to just what he is proposing, it's hard to say. Early on, its about Trump:

Almost a century later, it’s time to revisit the merits of universal public disclosure. Democrats in Congress are fighting to obtain President Trump’s tax returns under a separate 1924 law, written in response to related concerns about public corruption. That issue could be resolved, at least in part, if Congress embraced the broader case for publishing everyone’s tax bill.

Now as then, disclosure could help to ensure that people pay a fair share of taxes.

A bit later, we are following the property tax model, which is a ridiculous analogy (sales and liens are publicly recorded, unlike my salary, and low-ball appraisals for a mayor's friends would stick out like a sore thumb, but still:

Calling for more disclosure may seem discordant at a time of growing concern about privacy. But income taxation is an act of government, not an aspect of private life. Property tax records provide a reasonable model. Local governments disclose the name of the property owner, the value of the property and the amount of taxes owed and paid. The same information should be available for income taxes — nothing more is necessary.

Well, with Medicare and soon enough, Medicare For All, my use of medical services is very much a matter of public interest. I don't foresee a groundswell to put that on the web.

But if the suggestion is to include a top-line income figure and a bottom-line tax liability, how will that help my colleagues gauge my salary relative to theirs? What if my also spouse works? What if I have investment income? Or deductions for medical care I'd rather not publicize?

If he is calling for detailed disclosure researchers will be grateful but no one will agree. If it is cursury summary data, it won't mean anything. Sounds like another well-thought through progressive proposal induced by Trump Derangement Syndrome. Should have been run on April 1.

NO DEAD HORSE LEFT UNBEATEN: The Earnest Author forgot to include his own tax info with this op-ed piece, and he fails to note that the NY Times could disclose many more salaries of their top reporters and staff than they do. Despite mentioning the Scandinavian practice he also omits this sort of detail:

“It is obvious that openness is significant,” said Stein Reegard, chief economist of the Norwegian Confederation of Trades Unions. “At least for a better-informed public debate about the different levels of wages in society, whether it’s a question of leaders’ wages or equal pay.”

But the evidence is unclear and OECD economist Herwig Immervoll said there was no obvious correlation between income transparency and pay disparities. A 2015 Eurostat report showed a gender pay gap of around 15 percent in Sweden and nearly 19 percent in Finland, compared to an EU average of just over 16 percent.

Yeah, well, whatever.

Breakfast At Augusta

The non-traditional Sunday morning at the Masters. A ghastly weather forecast for Sunday afternoon moved up the schedule.

Since we were rooting for the Auburn Tigers last weekend we have to get behind Tiger again.

Almost Like Journalism

The Times reports on decisions at the DoJ to decline to defend two laws. One is the Affordable Care Act. The other, which apparently has experts divided, involves a technical dispute (what makes this a Federal and not state-level offense? See BACKGROUND below.) about a 1996 ban on female genital mutilation (hard to feel the political wind blowing from the right in favor of overturning that ban, inspired by immigrant behavior, but here we are...)

Sparking my ire is this ahistorical diatribe, my emphasis:

While there are important differences between the two cases — Republicans have attacked the Affordable Care Act in the courts for years, while legal experts are debating whether the circumcision law is defensible — critics were troubled by what they fear is an emerging view inside the Justice Department that it is up to the Trump administration, not members of Congress, to decide whether a law has merit and should be enforced.

“Imagine a world where an administration of one party passes a law and then a different president effectively invalidates it by having the Justice Department refuse to defend it in court,” said Joshua Geltzer, the executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law School.

“You want elected lawmakers to draft laws, not lawyers at the Justice Department,” Mr. Geltzer said.

Wow, to imagine that I'd have to imagine a President explaining he can't act until Congress changes the current law and then imagine that same President reversing himself after the legislative effort stalls and unilaterally instructing the DoJ to simply exercise its prosecutorial discretion and decline to enforce the law. Unthinkable!

Or if that memory is too raw, what about that other Clinton legacy project, the Defense of Marriage Act? The DoJ cut that loose as well in response to a shift in the political winds, that time from the left.

For the Times to pretend even for a second that this is a new problem under Trump is absurd.

BACKGROUND on female genital mutilation issue:

In drafting that law, Congress relied on its power to regulate interstate commerce. Lawmakers had increasingly used that authority to overcome the fact that they cannot simply make local crimes federal matters, no matter how evil, unless they violate some federal power that Congress wields.

“For this to work, Congress has to show that there is some connection between the criminal conduct and interstate commerce,” said Mr. Dellinger, now a partner at the O’Melveny & Myers law firm.

But in 2000, four years after the female circumcision law was enacted, the Supreme Court examined Congress’s use of the Interstate Commerce Act in drafting the Violence Against Women Act. In that case, United States v. Morrison, the government lost in part because the court had greatly narrowed Congress’s ability to use its power over interstate commerce to draft criminal laws.

Last year, in the first court case involving the genital mutilation law, the judge in Michigan cited the Morrison case to rule that Congress had failed to clearly draw a connection between interstate commerce and the practice of female genital mutilation.

In his letter to Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Francisco sent a list of possible changes to the law to strengthen the connection with interstate commerce and keep the ban on female circumcisions in place, like outlawing the use of the banking or telecommunications systems to perform the act.

“Essentially, the Justice Department is urging Congress to fix the law before a case gets to the Supreme Court, where there is a good chance it would be struck down,” Mr. Dellinger said, adding that the government’s action in this case was appropriate. “The constitutional fix is relatively straightforward, and should be uncontroversial.

Nothing is uncontroversial. This will be portrayed by some nutter somewhere as an attempt to attack immigrants and embarrass Ilhan Omar.