JustOneMinute

As Much As I Respect David French...

Normally David French does a terrific job at the National Review (I'm a HUGE fan of his Gun Violence Restraining Order piece) but... he is off the rails with his follow-up to this tweet:

By the way, the porn affairs and hush money payments by themselves are enough for me to never, ever vote for Trump. And that’s just one thing, of many. I remember the days, like way back in, say, May 2015, when that would have been a consensus Evangelical position.

That provoked this somewhat off-message response:

The difference is, unlike you, the evangelicals started thinking politically rather than moralistically. Moralism has its place, of course, but prudence must inform it and direct it. Aristotle (or even Aquinas!) should be our guide. You seem to prefer Kant.

Why is this off-message? Because it creates a false dichotomy between "thinking politically rather than moralistically".

Dealing with a lesser of two evils situation is a moral question that, believe it or not, precedes Trump. Here for example, is a Christian minister citing Aquinas and "the moral principle of double effect":

Saint Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, established the moral principle of double effect. (II-II.64.7) Four conditions must be met for someone to act righteously despite bad consequences. First, the act itself must be good or at least amoral. One could argue that voting is a good deed or at least morally indifferent. Secondly, the good effect cannot be achieved by means of the bad effect. The Machiavellian policy that the end justifies the means is wrong; nothing justifies sinful methods. Thirdly, one must intend only the good effect. The other is an involuntary repercussion.

To illustrate, physicians routinely prescribe medicines to patients notwithstanding unfortunate side-effects. Finally, the good effect must be proportionately greater than the evil effect. For instance, driving through a red light when there is no traffic in the middle of the night is better than waiting for it to turn green when rushing someone urgently to a hospital.

Do I need to tell you the station stop for this train? Evangelicals were not casting a 'pro-adultery' vote; they were casting an 'anti-abortion' vote. Can it be morally defensible to choose one bad thing over another?

 

We might be in an even better place if evangelical leaders would pound the table on this point, denouncing Trump's adultery while defending his policies. God sending flawed men to advance His designs is described here.

 

The WaPo went down to Alabama to describe how one congregation dealt with this. A snippet:

There was Terry Drew, who sat in the seventh pew on the left side, who knew and agreed with Trump’s position, and knew that supporting him involved a blatant moral compromise.

“I hate it,” he said. “My wife and I talk about it all the time. We rationalize the immoral things away. We don’t like it, but we look at the alternative, and think it could be worse than this.”

The only way to understand how a Christian like him could support a man who boasted about grabbing women’s crotches, Terry said, was to understand how he felt about the person Trump was still constantly bringing up in his speeches and who loomed large in Terry’s thoughts: Hillary Clinton, whom Terry saw as “sinister” and “evil” and “I’d say, of Satan.”

“She hates me,” Terry said, sitting in Crum’s office one day. “She has contempt for people like me, and Clay, and people who love God and believe in the Second Amendment. I think if she had her way it would be a dangerous country for the likes of me.”

Not a Hillary fan. The minister also wrestled with his support for Trump but settled on the notion that God sometimes uses flawed messengers:

The dilemma was that Trump was an immoral person doing what Crum considered to be moral things. The conservative judges. The antiabortion policies. And something else even more important to a small Southern Baptist congregation worried about their own annihilation.

“It encouraged them that we do still have some political power in this country,” said Crum.

When he prayed about it, that was what the voice of God had told him. The voice reminded Crum that God always had a hand in elections. The voice told him that God used all kinds of people to do his will.

“Nebuchadnezzar,” Crum said, citing the pagan king of Babylon who was advised by godly men to tear down an old corrupt order. “Even sometimes bad leaders are used by God.”

No spoiler on how the minister talked about Trump during the sermon.

 

Big Day

Trump in Hanoi, Cohen in Congress. Big day.

Brexit Fog

I don't think I am alone in having lost the plot on Brexit. Exit day is slated for March 29, which hits the Regional Weekend of March Madness and is right after Opening Day in baseball. Then April is big: baseball settles in, the NBA Playoffs, Avengers: Endgame, Game of Thrones... who has time for Brexit? Pushing it back a few months (or years!) is a great idea.

Sunday Action

Nearly a snow day! Snow turning to rain is the worst of both worlds - grey, damp and no chance to use the Greatest Toy Ever.

Another Day Slipping Away

Let's hit the ground, running or otherwise.

Better Gun Law Enforcement, And Better Fact-Checking

Inspired by the recent Aurora IL shooting the NY Times takes a fair and balanced look at the recurring problem that our existing gun laws are not enforced. We learn that safety is neither safe nor cheap:

Still, only eight states have laws that provide an explicit mechanism so that people suspected of having guns in violation of those prohibitions are actually required to give them up. And some of those states merely allow — but do not require — the police to seek a court order to confiscate such guns.

That was the case in Illinois, where the authorities knew for more than four years that Gary Martin was a violent felon but apparently did nothing to ensure that he surrendered the laser-sighted Smith & Wesson handgun that he used to kill five co-workers in Aurora, Ill., on Friday.

...

Unlike Illinois, most states do not have an explicit process allowing the police a way to confiscate guns from people suspected of being prohibited owners. But even in those states that do, two factors explain why many police and sheriff’s departments use these laws so infrequently: time and danger.

“That’s a challenging situation for law enforcement to knock on a door and say, ‘Hey, we’re here to take your guns, Mr. Dangerous Criminal,’” said Adam Skaggs, chief counsel of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocates tighter gun laws.

Well, yes, police work can be dangerous. Showing up after a shooting is not so threatening physically, but then again, showing up with a shooting is also dangerous - six officers were injured in the Aurora shoot-out, so danger deferred is not always danger denied.

As to budgets:

But when Illinois lawmakers sought to tighten state law so that the police would be mandated to confiscate guns owned by people barred from possessing them, or at least verify that the guns had been transferred to legal owners, concerns about manpower helped doom the proposal.

“Law enforcement didn’t object to the essence of the law,” but said they would need far more money to carry it out, said State Representative Kathleen Willis, a Democrat from suburban Chicago who is pushing to toughen the law.

Freedom isn't free and safety isn't cheap.

And, on to a fact-check. This one becomes Blue-on-Blue. The Times quotes a Brady spokesperson:

One in five gun purchases is estimated to occur with no background check, such as through sales over the internet or at gun shows, said Kris Brown, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. That attracts buyers who would fail a check.

“You’d have to assume that if you are a prohibited purchaser, you are aware of that loophole, and that’s how you’re going to get a gun,” Ms. Brown said.

Do note the word "purchases", which ought to be "transfers". Here is the 2017 study, but Politifact has already tackled this:

The fact checks, and experts we contacted, instead cited a study authored by researchers from Northeastern and Harvard universities that was published in January 2017. They did an online survey, in 2015, of 1,613 adult gun owners.

Among gun owners who said they obtained their most recent gun within the two previous years:

• • 22 percent overall said they obtained the guns without a background check. But that includes guns that were purchased or received in another way, such as through a gift or an inheritance.

• • 13 percent who purchased firearms -- for example, from a friend or online -- said they had done so without a background check.

The lower figure applies here, given that Bullock’s claim is about gun sales.

Blue-on-blue. And let's note that the unchecked purchases includes family, friends and acquaintances as well as gun shows and online. In fact, a quick glance at the relevant table tells me that family, friends and acquaintance transfers outnumber the online and gun show transfers. Of course, thugs and nut jobs have friends and family too.

As to the infamous gun show loophole, per this survey, 4% of transfers in the past two years were at gun shows, with no one claiming to gave avoided a background check. Not exactly the point the Brady person made.

 

Which Ethnic Stereotypes Are Acceptable?

Kamala Harris joked about her Jamaican heritage when asked about marijuana legalization in a recent interview. Progressives did NOT pounce. Conservatives pounced on her drug-induced time travel, since she seemed to claim she was listening to music released in the early 90's while in college in the mid-80s. Good times!

But now her father, Stanford Professor Donald Harris, has joined in:

Kamala Harris' Jamaican father rips her for pushing pot stereotype 'in pursuit of identity politics'

Oh, brother. Fathers, protect your daughters, because they love you to death. Handle this in private, PLEASE.

That said, he had a good point - not all Jamaicans want to be branded as Cheech or Chong:

“My dear departed grandmother … as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics,” he said.

“Speaking for myself and my immediate Jamaican family, we wish to categorically dissociate ourselves from this travesty,” Mr. Harris, an economics professor at Stanford University, concluded in a statement to the news site for the Jamaican diaspora.

Jamaica Global fretted that the remarks by Ms. Harris — an early front-runner for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination — could fuel stereotypes of Jamaicans and cited U.S. news outlets’ headlines and columnists using the image.

“For some, it is more than mere unease; one Jamaican commenting on social media expressed the concern that ‘soon my job will be singling me out to drug test me since I am from Jamaica. What a stereotype.’ Her concern is not unfounded given the experience of Jamaicans travelling to US ports having sniffer dogs around them in customs halls,” Jamaica Global wrote.

As a bonus twist, the Jamaican ganja is cultural appropriation from the other half of Kamala Harris' heritage:

Jamaica Global also noted the “ironic twist” that while Ms. Harris‘ father is Jamaican, her mother is from India, and that the practice of using marijuana as a mild hallucinogenic drug was Indian and brought to Jamaica when both nations were British colonies. [Trust but verify - TRUE]

Blaming the Brits will give everyone an easy out here.

In the meantime: will the Identitarians pounce on Harris now? (Suspenseful, amirite? Of course not.). Is it OK for all of us to joke about Jamaican potheads? Or is it only OK if Jamaicans and, I guess, half-Jamaicans joke about it?

And in a non-symmetric situation, since no one was kidding around - what if Brett Kavanaugh had cited his Irish heritage in the course of his "I like beer" Supreme Court hearing? As best I can tell he did not, but some volunteered it for him anyway. Yes, it was a serious hearing not a radio interview and yes, bashing white Catholics is practically a job requirement in the Legacy Media, but still - would an "all Irish drink heavily" stereotype have been acceptable in the mainstream media? (Yes, asking for a friend).

ASK A RHETORICAL QUESTION... "All Irish drink heavily" might not fly but apparently "there is a good possibility that Kavanaugh is currently an alcoholic, as perhaps 50% of people with a strong Irish heritage are" passes progressive muster.

"Perhaps 50%" is vague. Perhaps 70% of progressive males engage in sexual harassment (#ThemToo). Or not.

As to a bit of research:

According to a report from Ireland’s Health Research Board, 54 percent of respondents – about 2.4 million Irish adults – engage in harmful or risky drinking each year, compared to an overall European average of 28 percent.

I suppose here might be a few alcoholics who drink steadily without engaging in harmful or risky behavior if we limit this to immediate harm; long term harm seems inevitable.

But plenty of drinkers put the 'wreck' in recreational. If 54% engage in harmful or risky drinking, that will include a lot of non-alcoholics, such as week-end binge drinkers.

In any case, this is a survey of the Irish in Ireland, so they have a stronger cultural and genetic Irish link than a 50 percenter in New England. To pick a random example.

PRO TIP: Yeah, I started in Jamaica with Kamala Harris but notice how this piece ends where it ought to - all about me.

A MAN CAN DREAM: I'm picturing this scene from "A Few Good Drinks": "You're damn right I ordered the cold beer!"

PSA: As an occasional public service I present this science-based advice on hangover prevention. "Drink responsibly" is still the best advice.

Enter Sandmann

Covington HS student Nick Sandmann and his high-powered legal team have begun filing defamation lawsuits.

Highlights of the claim:

The lawsuit claims The Post "ignored the truth" about the incident and says the paper "falsely accused Nicholas of ... 'accost[ing]' Phillips by 'suddenly swarm[ing]' him in a 'threaten[ing]' and 'physically intimidat[ing]' manner ... 'block[ing]' Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips 'to retreat,' 'taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,' [and] chanting, 'Build that wall,' 'Trump2020,' or 'Go back to Africa,' and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct. ..."Sandmann's attorneys accuse The Post of publishing seven "false and defamatory" articles about the incident between Jan. 19 and 21 and claim the paper "knew and intended that its false and defamatory accusations would be republished by others, including media outlets and others on social media."

Just comparing the initial WaPo account (ignore the Jan 22 dateline; the URL has a Jan 20 date) with the "It's More Complicated" walkback, one can see some problems for the defense.

AllahPundit is less optimistic that the WaPo is in trouble. DO let me add: I am a big fan of AllahP but I think he is misunderestimating the plaintiffs chances here. These are high-powered law firms that don't need the publicity and are clearly on a contingency fee. It won't be $250 million but they expect a payday. From the WaPo and others.

I LOVE A MYSTERY: The WaPo reports on the lawsuit but doesn't bother to link to any of the stories in question because democracy dies in darkness and they are all about transparency. Or something.

Bernie And Bloomberg

Bern, baby Bern is in the Dem 2020 race. Mike Bloomberg may be dialing up his contemplation. As to Bloomberg's prospects, is the nation ready for a brash self-made New York billionaire?

GA House Speaker David Ralston And The Silence of the Dogs

What's up down South? The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported last week (Feb 13) on what looks (to my tired Yankee eyes) like an appalling abuse of power by the Republican Speaker of the House David Ralston:

Alleged victims say powerful Georgia lawmaker repeatedly delays cases

...

Yet more than four years after his indictment [on domestic violence, aggravated assault] Shell remains a free man, the charges against him stymied. A big reason: He paid a large retainer fee to hire an attorney who is also one of Georgia’s most powerful lawmakers, state Speaker of the House David Ralston.

Just as Ralston has done for other clients charged with violent or heinous crimes, he used his elected position to delay hearings and court dates, preventing the case from moving forward in the Gilmer County justice system.

“That’s why I gave him 20,000 bucks,” Shell told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “He’s worth every penny of it.”

A joint investigation by the AJC and Channel 2 Action News found that Ralston appears to be misusing the power of his public office to benefit his private law practice. By doing no more than writing letters to judges declaring that court dates interfere with his lawmaking duties, he has been able to keep cases perpetually off the docket. But his tactics can thwart justice, harm crime victims and put the public at risk.

Ralston has tied up cases for clients charged with child molestation, child cruelty, assault, terroristic threats, drunk driving and other crimes.

...

Under a state law dating back to 1905, judges and prosecutors must defer to the legislative schedule of any practicing attorney who serves in the General Assembly. Other attorney-lawmakers, though, are mainly relegated to claiming the exemption during the annual 40-day legislative sessions.

As House speaker, Ralston, who practices law in the rural, mountainous counties of North Georgia, can claim conflicts year-round. In 21 cases examined in four counties over a two-year period, he filed 57 requests for continuances.

This story seems to have it what it takes to generate a media storm, namely sympathetic (alleged) victims and a Republican evil-doer. But maybe the media can't rally without footage of Ralston in a MAGA hat (or blackface!). A Google News search on "David Ralston" returns articles by the AJC, Channel 2 Action News, and Fox News. I'll credit Erick Erickson with the Fox coverage, since he has been pounding the table on Twitter for more coverage.

So why the media silence? The AJC bloggers wondered about a related question today - why the muted response from Democrats?

***

Earlier this morning, we told you that House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, is facing criticism after an AJC investigation that found he frequently delayed criminal court cases by claiming the dates interfered with his legislative duties. 

But as we have often said in this space, the dogs that don’t bark are sometimes just as important as the ones that do. What goes unsaid can be just as important as what’s said. This is the statement that arrived late Friday from the state Democratic party, via spokeswoman Maggie Chambers:

“These revelations show that Speaker Ralston has abused his power as a public servant to delay and deny justice for crime victims. As a legislator who has been given the trust of his constituents, he needs to remember his duty and put the needs of Georgia families before his own self-interest.”

“Needs to remember his duty” is a far cry from calling for Ralston’s resignation, a demand which -- so far as we know -- hasn’t passed the lips of any elected official in the state Capitol.

The Democratic party statement is a reminder that Ralston has been an occasional partner with Democrats in the Legislature on some particularly crucial issues. And we’ve a long way to go before this session of the General Assembly is finished.

The silence has struck some as concerning. WSB Radio’s Erick Erickson is currently pushing his followers to contact members of the House Ethics Committee, Democrats included.

Huh. 

I would not presume to lecture either Erick Erickson or the AJC on the subtleties of Georgia politics, but... oh, let me do just that. This article describes the 40 day agenda in the GA capital and notes that Speaker Ralston diverges from the newly elected Republican governor on two attention-getting issues: a Religious Freedom bill opposed by Democrats (and nixed by the last Republican governor) and the state takeover of the Atlanta airport.

...

And they’ve become a very highly charged issue. Republican Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed a RFRA in 2016, saying he was not disparaging the motives of the bill’s supporters, but he found there was a chance it could lead to state-sanctioned discrimination.

State House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, he’s not sure there’s state House support for a RFRA.

He said his concern is that it’s an issue that has the potential to divide the state. 

“I would would just ask us to pause before we get into an issue that has the potential to tear the fabric of the state,” Ralston said at a pre-session press conference last week.

But new Gov. Brian Kemp and new Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan are interested. Both have said they want to pass a RFRA that mirrors the language of the federal law.

And...

Ralston said he’s not ready to embrace the idea of a state takeover of the airport.

If corruption is the concern, Ralston said, “We have law enforcement, we have prosecutors, and I say let’s turn them loose to do what they need to do. I don’t know that you change the entire system because of some bad actors.”

If - IF - that is all that is holding Democrats back, they need to man up, woman up, or hero-up. As to Republican silence, or the media silence generally, I can't explain it. Where is the fact-free rush to judgment when we need it?

BONUS BAFFLER: The media Cone of Silence has fallen over Virginia. Maybe after the political meltdown there, no media members want to go near any southern state political leader. Maybe!

PILING ON: In January the Speaker was trying to rein in the gun rights enthusiasts in his own party, which may be yet another reason Democrats don't mind having him around.

Jussie Smollett Meltdown

Not everyone is surprised by this slow trainwreck coming:

Police sources: New evidence suggests Jussie Smollett orchestrated attack

Unless I've missed an update we are still in the "Sources Say" phase, but it's hard to see how Smollett explains this away.

Now, a Frequently Unasked Question: Smollett had received a threatening letter a week earlier, which the FBI was investigating. Also a hoax? {Rick Moran has more at PJ Media.]

And when did the alleged attackers become white? Neither the initial NY Times nor Ebony accounts mention that, nor is it brought up in Smollett's initial statement. IIRC, in some statement Smollett said he didn't know their race since they were bundled up against the cold.

MORE: TMZ said the attackers were white in their initial coverage and recently claimed they had that confirmed twice.

 

 

Amazon's Now Abandoned Special Deal Not So Special

Amidst the rhetoric around the abandoned Amazon deal do let me note this - most of the incentives and tax breaks Amazon was offered are available to any qualifying company that moves to New York and/or creates jobs there. These were 80's era tax incentive programs intended to boost New York city and state. Do they make sense today? Probably not for the greatest city in the word, although upstate has needed help since the railroads eclipsed the Erie Canal.

Be that as it may, the Gotham Gazette had details when the deal was announced last November, as did the NY Times:

New York promised Amazon $1.525 billion in incentives, including $1.2 billion over the next 10 years as part of the state’s Excelsior tax credit. The state also pledged to help Amazon with infrastructure upgrades, job-training programs and even assistance “securing access to a helipad” — none of which came with a price tag.

...

New York City did not offer any special tax breaks to Amazon as part of the deal. But the company will be able to take advantage of existing city tax credits, including a program designed to encourage companies to create jobs outside the busiest parts of Manhattan. The program, open to all companies, could be worth as much as $900 million to Amazon over 12 years, on top of the state incentives.

In addition to the Excelsior Jobs Program the Gotham Gazette cites REAP and ICAP.

The "by-right" nature of these open-to-all programs has never been a mystery. Yet coverage includes some howlers. Megan McArdle linked to this blast from the past by Josh Barro, who really ought to know better:

Here’s Why New York Is Resorting to Paying Amazon $3 Billion for What Google Will Do for Free

I'll bet Google applied for the benefit under those programs but didn't encourage politicians to take a victory lap talking up tax breaks for Google. Discretion is the better part of tax avoidance.

So Josh Barro made a mistake. So what? But here is a slightly more prominent figure delivering the same howler:

You know, I think it’s really important that we understand that we need to invest in our economy, but we need to invest in our people, and to give away $3 billion to a company that has a history of worker exploitation that’s paying below what the cost of New York City is not acceptable for us. We need to have good jobs, and they need to come to the table as in — you know, any company that wants to come to New York needs to come to the table as an equal partner, and you look at how Google came to New York; it was not nearly as controversial as this, and I think it’s because of, they were willing to work with local communities.”

“What’s great is that our economy, our local economy, is already growing. So I firmly believe that if we want to take that $3 billion dollars that we were willing to give to Amazon and invest it in our local community, we can do that. We can make those jobs. We can make 25,000 jobs.”

If and when those 25,000 jobs are created in Long Island City I bet the employers will be filing for the available tax breaks. Quietly. That's just my wild guess. But don't tell AOC and she'll never know. Very clever of Google to keep it on the dl - its an expedient modus operandi, although people do get upset when they learn the truth.

BONUS BAFFLER: Here is a Times piece on the Amazon subsidies. The author may be aware that these are public programs but it is well concealed. Her sinister close:

[Nathan Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who studies incentive packages] suspects that some people will learn the opposite lesson — that New York should have just given Amazon what it wanted. A better takeaway, he said, is that huge subsidies aren’t necessary. And politicians should beware the consequences of negotiating them in private.

Don't negotiate in private or apply programs on the books for thirty years. Got it.

NOT SO HARD: The Sunday Times will include a piece on Amazon by Amy Liu. Explaining the subsidies is not impossible!:

But the role of public officials in this controversy deserves more scrutiny. Too often, they agree to economic development deals that fail to protect the interests of their constituents and negotiate through a process that is closed door and top down. State and local officials continue to hand out goodies even though evidence suggests that such subsidies have little effect on jobs.

In New York, the governor and mayor structured an agreement with Amazon using policy tools already established in the law. Amazon received “as-of-right” incentives, which are given automatically when a company wants to expand or relocate its facilities. New York’s as-of-right incentives, which are available to any company in a priority industry for the state that goes to a borough outside Manhattan, have been widely criticized as flawed and outdated. The amount of incentives offered ballooned to billions of dollars because of the proposed job count. Additionally, the city and state agreed that Amazon would not need to go through a local land-use review process, prompting the City Council to cry foul. Soon, a vocal minority of elected officials, labor leaders, and community activists revolted against the deal.

 

 

Away We Go

I had high hopes for a real eye-opener on taxing the rich, but it hinges in part on whether you think Bill Gates is even more knowledgeable on this topic than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

For practical reasons, Bill and Melinda Gates don't want lawmakers to get bogged down in arguments about the top marginal rate, which is currently 37 percent. "If you focus on that, you're missing the picture," Bill said in a recent interview with The Verge.

"In terms of revenue collection, you wouldn't want to just focus on the ordinary income rate, because people who are wealthy have a rounding error of ordinary income," he said. "They have income that just is the value of their stock, which if they don't sell it, it doesn't show up as income at all, or if it shows up, it shows over in the capital gains side. So the ability of hedge fund people, various people — they aren't paying that ordinary income rate."

Instead, he suggested, we should be more progressive with "the estate tax and the tax on capital, the way the FICA and Social Security taxes work. We can be more progressive without really threatening income generation." That idea might find favor with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has floated the idea of a wealth tax on households worth more than $50 million.

I still say, above a high threshold impose mark-to-market accounting to end the eternal deferral of unrealized capital gains taxes. But to avoid forced sales to pay the bill (and to create a buffer account against possible future losses) allow payment of the taxes over ten years.

Mark-to-market accounting is already part of the tax code (eg, futures and index options, not to mention the charitable deduction for appreciated assets with a long term gain.) This idea side-steps the Constitutional puzzle of Warren's wealth tax.

"Democratic Clown Car" Was Meant As Derision, Not Aspiration

Thanks to Obama we are beyond the question of whether America is ready for a black President.

But there are doors yet to be kicked down and Senator Spartacus is here with his boots on!

Vegan Cory Booker Says Meat Eaters’ Days Are Numbered

Geez, Booker with more raw tofu for his base. Team AOC already put a ten year "sell-by" on America's flatulent cows so I think these New Age progressives are serious. Serious, thoughtful, relatable, and totally in touch with Middle America. (Ooops, did I leave out "electable"?)

 

Owning The Libs By Voting On Their Proposals

Cocaine Mitch brings the crowd to its feet with his plan to bring the Ocasio-Cortez/Markey Green New Deal resolution to the Senate for a floor vote. How far out is that "plan"? The NY Times today presents an "ambitious" plan to achieve half as much in three times as long. Whoa, that is quite a gap between AOC and her cheerleaders - next time they might want to agree to appear in the same stadium.

Meanwhile, Sen. Markey cries foul!

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) of trying to “sabotage” and “silence” voters by bringing the Green New Deal, which was also proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), to the Senate floor to vote on.

Uh huh. Voting on the bill is "sabotage". And if Trump were to sign it Pelosi would probably view it as an impeachable offense (mental incapacity?!?). What's Markey's message, "Stop me before I speak again"?

Now, let me have a To Be Fair moment: Markey might have envisioned committee hearings, expert testimony, and a chance to build public support for his pandering left-wing dreamscape. After which the bill would die in committee, where only a few sacrificial lambs from the Democratic side would have to stand and be slaughtered counted. But, ooops - now they will all have a chance at Auto-beclownment.

So, a possible dodge - Markey and the Dem Senate leadership could pull a page from the Mitch-Fu playbook and filibuster their own bill. Would that be even more embarrassing? Do these guys (and gals!) even know what embarrassment is anymore?

WHEN YOU'VE LOST THE TIMES: To give a sense of the uphill battle Markey and AOC face on this, let's segue to the NY Times, which has an interactive display outlining seven "ambitious" plans that could, together, cut US greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050. (50 by 50? That could soundbite! I'd give it a 50/50 chance... Now ask me about "Fifty-four Forty or fight"!)

First of all, 2050? The "goal" in the Markey/Ocasio-Cortez fantasy seems to be for the US to be net-zero at the end of their ten year plan, so maybe 2030 (my emphasis):

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

1.  it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

  A. to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

...

2. the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal goals’’) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal mobilization’’) that will require the following goals and projects—

A. building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;

B. repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including— by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible; by guaranteeing universal access to clean water; by reducing the risks posed by flooding and other climate impacts; and by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;

C. meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—

The first two steps of the NY Times plans include a carbon tax and a push for zero emissions power including nuclear. Carbon taxes are poo-poohed in the AOC FAQ. Nuclear is ducked in the resolution but is treated like a cow (a flatulent cow, not a sacred one) in the FAQs - kill 'em!

Smoking In The DA's Room

Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris admitted to marijuana use in college and then messed up her timeline, saying she toked up while listening to rappers who made the scene while she was a Deputy District Attorney in Oakland. Oops!

Most of the reporting came from the right but there was some possibility that lefties would take up the charge since there are already progressives who are skeptical of prosecutors. They are probably even more skeptical of hypocritical prosecutors. What, lock 'em up by day, light 'em up at night?

In any case, Team Harris's spokesperson is backpedaling to Newsweek, saying she was responding to a different question about which music she listens to. Eventually she may be asked by the progressive media whether she smoked marijuana after college and we may see more waltzing and tap-dancing.

Roll the tape! The "marijuana in college" is at about 34:10; The 'What music did you listen to, with a quick interruption to ask, what did you listen to while high' moment is at 38:00.

This incident is an interesting straw in the wind. Obviously the legacy media focuses on protecting the Democratic brand (When they write "Republicans pounce" I read "Lib media circle the wagons"). But this huge Democratic Presidential primary is going to be a festival of Blue-on-Blue. There will be times (this might have been one of them) where the media instinct to cover for their side can't work because some factions on their side want to discredit other factions. Fun, fun, fun!

 

Oh, THAT Green New Deal!

Jeff Stein and Journolister David Weigel of the WaPo deliver a hard-hitting apologia for the botched roll-out of the New Green Deal and the accompanying FAQs from Team AOC. All that's missing is "Republican's pounced!" [Thanks to the NY Times, its no longer missing.]

Real journalists might have explored the ideological divergences on the left that led to obvious compromises on topics such as nuclear power and carbon capture (presumably views on farting cows are widely shared). Maybe even get quotes frim lefties ranging from moderate to Fully Delusional on those issues. Or don't bother. Better to pretend the Dems are on the same page.

Jordan Weissmann of Slate took the exploratory route with interesting results:

And a careful read [of the actual resolution] revealed that, for all its ambition, the resolution actually represented a compromise of sorts between the new wave of socialism-embracing enviro-warriors, represented by Ocasio-Cortez, and establishment climate hawks like Markey, who co-authored a cap-and-trade bill that passed the House but died in the Senate during 2010. Far-left environmental groups such as the Sunrise Movement, which staged sit-ins in Spaker Nancy Pelosi’s office over the Green New Deal, have threatened to oppose climate legislation that relies on nuclear power, carbon-capture technology, or “market-based mechanisms” to limit carbon, such as cap-and-trade or a carbon tax. This absolutist stance has startled and frightened some more-moderate climate activists and scientists, who believe that power sources like nuclear will be necessary to prevent the planet from frying and are worried that the left might be stumbling into an environmental agenda that will inadvertently doom us by rejecting necessary tools. It’s OK, in their view, to be overly ambitious about taming capitalism; it is not OK to rule out technologies we might need to save ourselves.

The Green New Deal resolution avoided these messy fights simply by staying mum on them. Instead of saying yes or no on nuclear, for instance, it set out the goal of “Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.” The words carbon tax aren’t in the resolution, which means the idea isn’t being ruled out. The compromise worked. Even if every Democrat wasn’t quite on board, the resolution netted 60 house members and nine Senators, including a bunch of 2020 hopefuls, as co-sponsors.

But then there was the unofficial version...

Ahh, well.

Early in the day, Ocasio-Cortez’s office sent out a FAQ to reporters that read a bit like the Green New Deal Uncensored—as if the resolution had gotten drunk at an office party decided to tell its co-workers exactly what it thought of them. Nuclear? On its way out. “It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.” Carbon capture tech? Not a priority. “We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective.” The document even seemed to set its sights on air travel and beef. “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” To top everything off, the FAQ suggested Washington could pay for the plan essentially by printing money, thereby going full Modern Monetary Theory.

So why muddy the resolution by releasing this? Two ideas:

One obvious read is that the FAQ simply represents Ocasio-Cortez’s unfiltered views, and she will continue a push a version of climate policy along the lines it lays out.

Or, the Keep Hope Alive scenario:

Another way to look at the situation, though, is that the FAQ is essentially just a list of points that Ocasio-Cortez and her office lost on while negotiating the resolution with Markey. Most of the things that raised an uproar on Twitter—like wiping out America’s flatulent steer population—were not included in the resolution, after all. If you keep that in mind, the side-documents look more like an attempt to save face with left-wing activists, a promise that Ocasio-Cortez will keep fighting for their priorities even if the vast majority of Democrats won’t ever embrace them. As Markey suggested, the resolution is canon; the FAQs are fanfic.

The folks worried that democracy dies in darkness won't be shedding light on this.

Sunday Morning

Here we go again.

I gave up on my Thunder when they were flat on their backs and playing no defense in the third. Don't stop believing!

On a more serious topic, polling from Virginia on whether Governor Northam should moonwalk down shows that voters aren't nearly as woke as the posturing politicians. And the obvious partisan divides (Democrats, African-Americans favor him staying, Republicans say "out") does not reassure us that this is first and foremost a moral issue.

Meanwhile, Back In Virginia

Lt. Governor Fairfax has a second accuser who gave contemporaneous accounts to her friends o fa sexual assault at Duke in 2000.

I don't see how Fairfax survives the two allegations. This situation is just like the Kavanaugh mess, except for being totally different. Each woman is clear about the time and place and the Duke accuser identified friends in who she had confided at the time. At least one has come forward:

A college friend of Ms. Watson’s, Kaneedreck Adams, said in an interview that Ms. Watson told her she was raped the day after she said it happened, and named Mr. Fairfax as her assailant.

“She was upset, she was kind of crying quietly and she said that she had been raped” by Mr. Fairfax, Ms. Adams said.

“I said, ‘Did you say no?’ and she said, no she couldn’t say no,” Ms. Adams said. “And she said she was trying to get out of there, get away, remove herself from the situation, and she said Justin kept pushing her down.”

 

Green With... Laughter?

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez launches her Intersectional Environmentalism proposal to de-carbonize the US economy and solve every social problem within ten years.

Megan Mcardle, David Harsanyi and Jon Chait wack the pinata. I'll give Megan props for the best headline:

‘We’re nuts!’ isn’t a great pitch for a Green New Deal

But this proposal, and especially the accompanying (and withdrawn) fact sheet isn't merely ludicrously ambitious and devoid of common sense (Eliminate air travel?!? Retrofit "every" building in America?!?). It also reveals a stunning absence of basic knowledge of history and public finance.

One wonders whether Ms. AOC actually has the time and temperament to collaborate with experts and study an issue (yet another reason she is the Trump of the left!). Or did Democratic leadership cut her loose and send the real Washington hands off on other projects? Let her primary herself!

On to specifics. This passage on how the extreme environmental makeover might be financed may have sounded great in a college dorm. A freshman dorm. But this is a frightening level of ignorance about the structure, legal authorities, independence and role of the Federal Reserve when it comes from a Congressperson as part of a legislative package (my emphasis):

How will you pay for it?

The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity.

Ah, well, what? The Federal Reserve is an independent entity - it won't be financing this green agenda just because AOC thinks it ought to. As to their legal authority, well, it is widely agreed the Fed can purchase government backed debt. They crept beyond that during the 2008 financial meltdown and used their lending authority to finance parts of the AIG bailout in what was widely perceived as an dire, backs against the wall, emergency meltdown scenario. But it is not at all obvious why an independent Fed would choose to finance these green projects or whether it would be within their legal scope.

Back on the history front, this JFK/Ike/FDR nostalgia is ahistorical nonsense:

Americans love a challenge. This is our moonshot.

When JFK said we’d go to the by the end of the decade, people said impossible.

If Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate highway system today, people would ask how we’d pay for it.

When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes to fight World War 2, every business leader, CEO, and general laughed at him... At the time, the U.S. had produced 3,000 planes in the last year. By the end of the war, we produced 300,000 planes. That’s what we are capable of if we have real leadership.

One at a time: Kennedy first laid out the man-on-the-moon vision in May 1961. The US was losing the space race to the Soviet Union, which had the first satellite and the first man in space (their legacy rocket program from WWII gave them a head start).

Did people say "impossible"? The relevant Senate Committee unanimously approved funding a few weeks later. Polling was scattered: per Forbes, in 1959 52% thought a man on the moon was doable within 20 years; in early 1961, 65% approved of the attempt. Well, until the price tag was announced: per Wikipedia, 58% opposed the use of funds for that purpose. But "impossible"? Not seeing it.

And Ike? Well, he didn't wait for people to ask how we'd pay for the highway program - he asked Congress to extend the gasoline tax in his original proposal. No, fiscal conservatism wasn't invented last weekend to thwart Green Dreams.

As to FDR, my goodness: his speech calling for a massive rearmament effort was delivered on May 15, 1940, five days after Germany began their invasion of France. The French collapse along the Meuse was well underway, although the public (and possibly Allied military leadership) may not have been fully aware. The Times front page, with the Roosevelt speech in the upper left:

Although AOC is surely hearing laughter today, people were not laughing in May of 1940 (Geez, did she see "Churchill"? "Dunkirk"? How about "Avengers - Infinity War"?). In fact, FDR pressed into service William Knudsen, the head of General Motors, to dial up America's industrial base. Here is how historian Arthur Herman described Knudsen's approach:

“I’m no soldier,” Knudsen told Roosevelt when he got to Washington that May, “But I know if we get into war, the winning of it will be purely a question of material production.” He persuaded FDR that three steps were needed to get America’s businesses and factories ready for getting back to work, and getting ready for war.

The first was to rethink Roosevelt’s own anti-business instincts, and to bring industry leaders into the administration to deal with the production crisis.

The second was to scrap many of the New Deal’s anti-business regulations and tax policies, in order to give businesses an incentive to switch to wartime production and hire workers, retool, and expand their plants.

The third was to take control of the war mobilization process away from Washington bureaucrats and give it to America’s most innovative and productive companies.

That sounds sort of the opposite of the AOC plan to put the government in charge of everything.

Well. Other than showing no grasp of common sense, history or public finance I would say AOC is good to go.

Jeff Bezos Blackmailed?

The National Enquirer tried to blackmail Jeff Bezos by threatening to publish some dick-pics he sent to his new flame? And Bezos published their threatening emails?

Well, he has balls. And the National Enquirer has the pictures to prove it.

In Defense Of Capitalism

Trump is targeting Socialist Creep in American politics, or maybe just socialist creeps. While we wait for confirmation of the rumor that Putin's Twitter-bots are behind the amplification of AOC, let me toss this NY Times think piece from tech writer Farhood Manjoo into the mix:

Abolish Billionaires

A radical idea is gaining adherents on the left. It’s the perfect way to blunt tech-driven inequality.

I'll let you read it, or guess the rest.

And because there is nothing so satisfying as talking to the wind (possible exception - shouting "Get off my lawn!), I posted this comment among the hundreds there. Yup, my free content is helping the Times thrive.

First, the notion that all billionaires equal a policy failure is a call-back to the zero-sum notion that wealth is the result of exploitation.

Sometimes that is correct - Aldrich Rockefeller monopolized oil, driving up prices for everyone who used it directly or indirectly (ie, everyone). That IS exploitative, and is also barred by antitrust law. Break 'em up!

On the other hand, some people have breakthrough ideas that enrich us all. Who did JK Rowling exploit with her Harry Potter monopoly? (Then again, George Lucas is also a billionaire and if social policy had made him stop already with the Star Wars films after "Return of the Jedi" I'd have been a backer).

As a tech writer Mr. Manjoo is well positioned to understand this, as is every New Yorker who ever bought a lottery ticket or went to a restaurant staffed by aspiring Broadway stars. People line up for a chance to win $500 million in the lottery. Do they stand in line for $50,000? The prospect of an Gyneth Paltrow/Hugh Jackman type payday inspires hundreds who never make it. Would capping a media star's pay enrich or diminish our cultural life?

Tech is like Hollywood. Venture capital is looking for the NEXT Facebook success. However, most of The Next Big Things won't be. Tut-tutting at Zuckerberg's payday overlooks the huge number of ideas (a few of them good!) that got funding based on his example.

If there are antitrust problems with Big Tech, apply the law. Don't trash the whole process.

They have a character limit so I was mercifully brought up short. Left unremarked: The Times is likely to be a Last Man Standing in media, and will stay alive based on a mini-monopoly as one of a very few sources of "real" journalism (rather than clickbait aggregation). Whether the billionaire Sulzberger family is OK with this is left unexplored, but my guess is they consider themselves to be "good" billionaires.

MORE RUMORS: Bernie was compromised by his Soviet spymasters during his honeymoon in Russia. They knew his day would come! That is why they tried so hard to sandbag Hillary in 2016, but their timing was off. Still, defeating her kept the door open for Bernie 2020. Yes, it did!

Taxing My Patience And My Practice Time

A Connecticut state legislator has introduced a bill (House Bill (HB) 5700) taxing ammunition, with the goal of reducing gun violence:

A Connecticut state representative is proposing a 50-percent tax increase on ammunition, breaking new ground in the gun control debate.

...

“Currently ammunition is taxed at the same rate as other products,” Gilchrest says. “We want to increase it by 50 percent because we see it as a prevention measure.”

Gilchrest also said that her tax wouldn’t apply to law enforcement or members of the military, but claims it’s necessary for civilians. Gilchrest compares her ammunition tax to conventional “sin taxes” like those implemented on cigarettes and tobacco.

“We see this as a public health measure,” Gilchrest. “When we [increased taxes on cigarettes], we’ve seen a reduction in use. We want to continue Connecticut’s legacy of being the leader in preventing and addressing gun violence and we see this as another step forward in that direction.”

And her tweet includes this:

I’m hearing push back about the need to protect one's home... but how much ammunition does someone really need to do that?

How many bullets does a typical armed citizen use in a typical year shooting at would-be perps? For the vast majority, the number is zero, or close to it. And even those unlucky enough to actually need to fire their weapon aren't normally spraying the landscape (this Houston home invasion was an outlier.)

This is a tax on practice, not "gun violence". I am not sure how much time street thugs spend at the practice range, but this bill may reduce it. I doubt it will change the economics of armed robbery and I have a hard time picturing a would-be suicide thinking "I'd shoot myself but the taxes would kill me".

The NRA response seems to grasp the "Don't tax practice" issue:

“This dreadful legislation punishes law-abiding citizens and makes it harder to learn how to safely use firearms,” the NRA said on Twitter Tuesday morning.

There is also a Constitutional "infringement" question, a good discussion of which I cannot seem to find right now. The theme is that end runs around a Constitutional right are not allowed. For example, an exorbitant tax on ink is not really censorship but it would be an infringement of the free press. Similarly, allowing guns but banning ammunition would not (or should not) be acceptable under Heller.

 

Let's Dial Up The SOTU

The NY Times goes BOLD:

Trump’s State of the Union Address Unlikely to Bring Harmony

Real breakthrough stuff.

Those Scary, Annoying Russians

A Chill From The Hill:

Russian Navy has new weapon that makes targets hallucinate, vomit: report

Wow! Who knew they could weaponize the Super Bowl game film so quickly?!?

BONUS: Ross Douthat on his arc of fandom for the Red Sox and Patriots.

First, the Lost Years of shared sorrow and self-pity, aka the Lovable Losers era:

How I Learned to Love the Patriots (Again)

The underdoggery and romance of my childhood are out. Dynastic rule and the creation of a great new American institution are in.

I became a besotted baseball fan at the age of 6, watching the Boston Red Sox, my mother’s ancestral team, march to the World Series against the New York Mets. My parents woke me up near midnight on Oct. 25, 1986, to come downstairs with them and “watch the Red Sox win” — an eventuality that was, at that moment, just a single out away. It remained one out away through three singles, a devastating wild pitch and an incident that shall not be described involving one William Joseph Buckner. I wept, slept and awoke a gloomy pessimist, forever haunted by the fall of man.

...

This combination of Red Sox tragedy and Patriot futility defined my relationship to professional sports until adulthood, at which point (as you may have heard) absolutely everything changed for both teams and they became insufferably dominant. And my fandom, forged in suffering and melodrama and “wait ’till next year” rue, never quite recovered from my favorite teams’ success.

Yeah, yeah - everybody loves a loser until they experience winning. And the Boston fans! Back in the day an ardent Red Sox follower offered his take: In the Stadium, when the Yankees are down by three in the ninth the fans cheer and roar as if they can will the victory to which they are entitled. In Fenway if the Red Sox were leading by three in the ninth but the other team got a man on first, the place would go silent, as if thirty-three thousand turkeys had just been told about Thanksgiving.

Ahh, that's changed. Ross describes his bumpy transition into the glory years:

I remember that person, but I can’t remember how he felt. And trying to raise my children to be New England sports fans in an age of constant New England winning has given me real sympathy with the lukewarmly religious, the Christmas-and-Easter sort of believer who wants to impart some measure of piety to their children without really experiencing the flame of faith themselves.

...

But the frequent triumphs of the Sox and Pats have been crucial to my loss of ardor. In the old days I was always mystified about how Yankee fans stirred up the same excitement year after year despite their constant winning, and as my teams became increasingly Yankee-like the mystification remained. Indeed, I missed the thirst enough to seek the feeling elsewhere — adopting long-suffering franchises temporarily (until the Kansas City Royals ruined our affair by winning the World Series) to remind myself of what it was like to nourish long-unrequited hopes.

Today? He's nearing a breakthrough:

And now that the Patriots have ground their way, in a terrible-to-watch game highlighted by punts, to yet another Super Bowl victory, I want to report a change in my sports psychology. In my dutiful connection to the latest run of Patriot Super Bowl appearances, I have begun to feel something different, strange and unfamiliar — not a recovery of the old romance, but a growing appreciation of pure, ruthless effectiveness, an admiration for iron efficiency, a joy at the dismantling of highly touted rivals, a feeling that almost … almost … makes me begin to have a trace of a scintilla of understanding for what it feels like to be a Yankees fan.

 

A slippery slope! He eventually quotes General Patton. Does Douthat risk brain damage by listening to sports talk radio? If so, he knows that way back when Mike Francesca would greet pronouncements by the Yankee owner with an intro about a new message from General George M. Steinbrenner, with the theme from "Patton" in the background.

Oh, boy. Seven more weeks until baseball?

MORE: I can't find a General Steinbrenner clip but Mike and the Mad Dog talk to Red Sox fan Mike Barnicle after the 2003 finale. Starts at about 32:40.

Meanwhile, Back In West Texas

The NY Times swallows hard and front-pages on ode to the Pemian oil fields Low gasoline prices, the US as an oil exporter, Venezuela and Iran reeling, jobs, jobs, jobs - all they do is forget to credit Obama.

Wait, what? Credit Mr. "We Can't Drill Our Way Out Of This"? That would be crazy and they didn't try but... if I were an Earnest Obamaphile I would claim that although Obama paid lip service to the Green Agenda he never go behind the sort of federal fracking ban that, for example, Cuomo eventually backed in New York.

Sometimes doing nothing is a real cool hand.

Super Sunday!

So, did anything happen yesterday?

I was watching the press exhibition by embattled Governor Northam and thought I had tuned in to the longest cold open in the history of Saturday Night live.

Eugene Volokh is his calm and sensible self on the question of long-past misbehavior. His respondents at Reason also raise reasonable objections to being even-handed and sensible, arguing that Democrats won't stop and "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly?".

IMHO, if the apology for the picture on Friday and the disavowal of the picture on Saturday are baffling. If people think that on Saturday morning the governor decided on a strategy of bald-faced lying, well, yes, then you have to believe he is psychotic and delusional.

If, on the other hand, you think he panicked on Friday and realized he needed to pound the table in defense of his once-good name on Saturday, well, maybe. Obviously, politicians lie, but they also panic.

My question is, what's the rush? Is the governor signing controversial bills this weekend that the Lt. Governor would veto? I doubt it.

Only two weeks ago the right was enraged that the media piled onto the Covington kids with no atempt to gather facts and reflect. Two weeks later, here we go again.

Of course, the right could thunder away to their heart's content about Northam and nothing would change, as we saw with the controversy about his abortion comments. Democrats are happy to pile on because (a) they are in a furious contest to be Wokest Democrat EVER and (b) this is a free shot at the hoop since Lt. Governor Fairfax is totally acceptable ideologically and cosmetically.

ON THAT ABORTION BILL: I concur with David French about the real problem with that bill - moving from three doctors to one and removing a standard of harm to the mother are disturning:

The bill reduces the number of doctors required to certify the alleged medical need for an abortion from three to one, and — critically — eliminates any required showing of severity before the doctor and mother can determine that the birth would impair her physical or mental health. Under the bill’s actual text, virtually any claim of impairment would suffice to meet the act’s requirements. Anxiety? Depression? The conventional physical challenges of post-partum recovery? Any of those things could justify taking the life of a fully formed, completely viable, living infant.

However, although I rarely agree with NY Times columnist Michelle Goldberg (and disagree with her conclusions in this linked piece) her summary is fair: Northam's comments were taken out of context:

Things only escalated on Wednesday, when Gov. Ralph Northam was asked about the uproar during an appearance on a radio show. Northam, a pediatric neurologist by training, spoke about what actually happens when a woman goes into labor with a fetus that has severe deformities and may not be viable. The infant, he said, would be delivered and kept comfortable, and the family would decide about resuscitation.

Northam appeared to be pointing out the absurdity of Gilbert’s hypothetical, since even in grave circumstances, no one gets an abortion on the delivery table. But as a clip of the interview went viral, conservatives, including the Republican senator Marco Rubio, began accusing Northam of supporting the murder of newborns. It was the right-wing version of an online outrage mob, warping the governor's innocuous comments into a callous declaration of evil.

His actual comment was this (my emphasis):

When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of the mother, with the consent of physicians, more than one physician by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable. So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.

The discussion would NOT be about whether to kill the infant; the discussion would be about what heroic interventions would be employed while a severely deformed infant with a life expectancy of minutes or days managed to survive. In that sense it mirrors end of life discussions for the elderly and ill. Do Not Resuscitate? Electroshock to restart a failing heart? Feeding tubes? When should the family and physicians let nature take its course with a ninety year old or a nine-minute old?

And one never knows - this baby held on for a week and the family was happier for it.

Look, I have no problem bashing Northam for the actual abortion bill. However, his critics don't need to gild the black rose by misinterpreting his comments, willfully or inadvertently. And as was emphasized yesterday, Gov. Northam may not be the best spontaneous communicator of the current political class.

OK, THAT was a cheerful post to start the latest holiday. I suppose the national hatefest can resume just before gametime when we see whether the network broadcasts the national anthem and we can boo/cheer whomever is kneeling/standing. Then we'll pick it up again at halftime when Maroon 5 panders to the crowd that thinks they should have joined the boycott.

This will be the first game where I look forward to the endless booth reviews.

So, Was The Governor of Virginina in Blackface, Or The KKK Robes?

Hard to see Gov. Northam of post-birth abortion fame surviving this blackface/KKK yearbook debacle. Having a nickname of "Coonman" isn't likely to help.

If he wants to quietly resign, the Super Bowl is a great distraction. Of course, that means he has to hang on until Sunday evening.

Top US Marginal Tax Rate Over Time

So what was the top marginal tax rate in the 70s? C'mon, everyone knows that Reagan cut the top tax rate to 50% in 1981!

But what I for one did not know was that the Tax Reform Act of 1969, most famous for creating the AMT, lowered the top rate on Earned Income to 50%, leaving it at 70% for dividends, interest and rent. That seems topical if we are talking about the historical experience and incentives of people to show up sober and work all day at different tax rates.

And since you ask, the effect of that 1969 tax change did not go unremarked. Here is a NY Times archive article on executive compensation from 1975 (do overlook their scanning misfires):

The Executive's Tax‐Free Perks

By MARYLIN BENDER   NOV. 30, 1975

No matter how much stockholders grumble and Government tax reformers threaten to crack down, fringe benefits for top executives arc getting perkier and perkier.

Such traditional and conspicuous prerogatives of hieh executive office — usually called perquisites or perks—as chauffeur‐driven limousines and country‐club memberships may be somewhat imperiled. However, those with significant monetary value such as total medical coverage, million‐dollar life insurance and various riskfree, capital accretion deals are regularly being negotiated to lure cr keep managers at the top cf the corporate totem pole.

...

The higher the income tax rate, the more precious the tax‐free fringe benefit. Faced with 80 percent tax bites, some British executives have expressed gratitude for a weekly perk of two gallons’ of gasoline.

When their maximum income‐tax liability on straight salary dropped to 50 percent a few years ago, executives based in the United States lost whatever shyness they might have had about demanding hefty raises. Meanwhile, they continue to press the executive‐compensation specialists (who are hired and paid by the corporation) to devise other sweeteners for their incentive‐compensation packages.

Any numbers to give us an idea what we're talking about?

Perks with tangible dollar value have come to mean far more than status to executives. And the question of value is increasingly pertinent as the I.R.S. seems to be thinking of imputing perks as gross income.

Ira “The Executive Money Map,” a guide to planning return on investment in a manager's life, David J. McLaughlin, a partner in the management‐consulting firm of McKinsey & Company, estimates that for the typical chief executive at the $200,000‐a‐year level, 11 perks amount to a pretax value equal to 17.75 to 27.75 percent of salary.

That was in, say, 1975. In today's play money, per the BLS, $200,000/year then is roughly $1 million per year today. So yeah, rich. And fringe benefits worth 20%, or another $200K in today's money, ain't hay.

Part of the motivation for the reform, as explained by the Staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, was to avoid distortions in the economy and discourage the appeal of tax shelters.

That said, they offer an abstruse example explaining that the interplay of tax shelters, tax preferences and the new 50% Earned Income rate have taken them to a dark place in terms of clarity (I paraphrase).

Well. We would need a Vietnam-times tax veteran to sort this out but my current understanding is that:

 - the overall top rate stayed at 70% until the Reagan ERTA. Capital gains were taxed at a much lower rate.

 - wage and salary taxes were cut, even for the top earners, in 1969. That matters, because Pikkety and Saez have long noted the rise of the "working rich", who get their income from salaries, stock options, and founder's stock, not from clipping dividends and bond coupons or collecting rent on property.

 - therefore the top marginal tax rate in the 70s was... I don't know. For salaried executives I am tempted to say 50% but there is a trapdoor element here. Prior to the big 1986 reform there were all sorts of tax shelter schemes that let people invest in real estate, oil and gas, railroad cars, and all sorts of things not really in their normal line of work (I suspect this is covered in Mad Men but I have yet to watch it.)

The author "Adam Smith", writing in the 60s and 70's, had an amusing tax quip which I remember as follows:

"The US tax code is funny. When you get a big book advance friends tell you to buy an oil well. But when someone strikes oil, no one tells them to write a book".

So, the puzzle: if I had gotten an Earned Income windfall of $50,000 in November 1975 but could arrange to offset all that income with a tax shelter before year end, what was my actual marginal income and marginal tax rate? Great question, right? I know people are applauding because I can hear the sound of one hand clapping.

Let me close with this article about marginal and effective rates and Nick Gillespie's point that through a range of economies and tax regimes the Federal Tolerated Tax Take has never stayed above 20% of GDP for long.

ERRATA:

Here is the graph from Krugman that started this train of thought. If you are wondering what it means to compare average growth over ten years with the top tax rate in the final year, well, I don't have a Nobel Prize in anything, so save it.

 

OH, WHY NOT? Let me put the fox among the chickens. Contra Krugman (that means "Contrary to Krugman", not "Krugman has taken up arms in Central America"), not all the cool economists are sure that a top rate of 70% of more on the rich would be hunky dory. Charles I. Jones, a Stanford Prof with Harvard and MIT degrees, tinkers with the Saez model and suggests (somewhat drolly) that if new ideas are sufficiently valuable we might all benefit from a negative tax on the rich.

A negative tax on the rich? OK, it's cold outside but Hell hasn't frozen over yet, either here or in Stanford.

More generally, the calibrated model suggests that incorporating ideas and economic growth cuts the optimal top marginal tax rate substantially relative to the basic Saez calculation.

Well, how do we value an Elon Musk?

OH, YEAH: This is the total opposite of penance but my failure to know basic Nixon-era tax reforms earns me a song.

TROUBLE IN PIKKETY PARADISE: Dylan Matthews of Vox does a nice job with contrasting inequality studies which come to somewhat different estimates of the rise in inequality over time. His conclusion, however, is, uhh, well see for yourself:

The Auten/Splinter data does suggest that we might be underestimating how well the rich were doing in the 1960s and 1970s, and thus overestimating how different today’s age of inequality is from that period, a conclusion shared by some other recent research.

Among other things, that would suggest that the high individual tax rates of that period might have been less effective at tempering inequality than commonly thought. They certainly did something, but it appears rich people of that period found ways to collect the money tax-free regardless, specifically by parking it in corporations.

Rich people avoided taxes in the 60's and 70s? No way! Wait'll he hears about tax shelters.. And disco.

COMPREHENSIVE TAX GUIDE: All top tax rates, including surcharges and a split from 1970 to 1981 on Earned Income:

Further Note: 1970-81 rates reflect a lower top rate on earned income (second figure listed).

CITIZENS FOR TAX JUSTICE , MAY 2004