JustOneMinute

Going Nuclear

A committed, lifelong Green pounds the table for nuclear power. People familiar with the baseload problem and the unreliable nature of wind and solar won't find the plot surprising, but the detailed studies of California's seasonal use and generation from wind and solar were new to me. And no, batteries are not right around the corner. No mention of electrolysis, hydrogen and fuel cell batteries, however, so lots of room for follow-up.

And the safety of nuclear plants? Well, compared to what? This factoid grabbed me:

Because nuclear plants produce heat without fire, they emit no air pollution in the form of smoke. By contrast, the smoke from burning fossil fuels and biomass results in the premature deaths of seven million people per year, according to the World Health Organization.

Even during the worst accidents, nuclear plants release small amounts of radioactive particulate matter from the tiny quantities of uranium atoms split apart to make heat.

Over an 80-year lifespan, fewer than 200 people will die from the radiation from the worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, and zero will die from the small amounts of radiant particulate matter that escaped from Fukushima.

As a result, the climate scientist James Hanson and a colleague found that nuclear plants have actually saved nearly two million lives to date that would have been lost to air pollution.

Seven million lives per year? That is a lot of Chernobyls and Fukushimas. However, assuming this is the study, there is a bit of apples-to-oranges going on here. From WHO:

After analysing the risk factors and taking into account revisions in methodology, WHO estimates indoor air pollution was linked to 4.3 million deaths in 2012 in households cooking over coal, wood and biomass stoves. The new estimate is explained by better information about pollution exposures among the estimated 2.9 billion people living in homes using wood, coal or dung as their primary cooking fuel, as well as evidence about air pollution's role in the development of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, and cancers.

In the case of outdoor air pollution, WHO estimates there were 3.7 million deaths in 2012 from urban and rural sources worldwide.

Many people are exposed to both indoor and outdoor air pollution. Due to this overlap, mortality attributed to the two sources cannot simply be added together, hence the total estimate of around 7 million deaths in 2012.

The indoor pollution, as well as the level of outdoor pollution, sounds like London in 1952, not the first world today. Nuclear power plants in California won't be a direct help to Third-Worlders burning dung. What is needed is to get developing countries onto a cleaner electric grid. Nuclear would be fine but any modern natural gas plant will be cleaner than coal-, dung- or wood-fired stoves.

Also, a lot of industrial air pollution won't be addressed by cleaner electricity, renewable or otherwise. Steel mills, for example, will remain a challenge.

Nonetheless, welcome aboard! If Greens generally are serious in saying we face a crisis then even more of them ought to re-calibrate their position on nuclear power.

Hmm - a big, critical project uniting left and right... applying American tech and can-do... saving the world... I can hear the Indiana Jones theme right now!

A CHANGE IN THE WEATHER: The NY Times notes that within Republican ranks there is a changing climate on climate change. They cite editorials by Senator John Barrasso (R, WY) who chairs of the Senate Environment Committee, and this from House Republicans Walden, Upton and Shimkus.

All emphasize nuclear power and innovation. On the importance of innovation, Megan McArdle makes an excellent point: The US, Europe and Japan are wealthy enough to subsidize our way to a much lower carbon footprint; India, China and the developing world are not. Unless we are prepared to subsidize them as well as ourselves, we need solutions that are competitive with fossil fuels. And however hard that looks, it is probably harder - as Tyler Cowen notes, if the West cuts back on its use of oil, the resulting price drop will make it more attractive in China and India.

Well, as the great Raylen Givens said in a different context, "I ain't lookin' for easy".

Gov. Inslee Is A Climate "Warrior", Not A Winner

Politico provides a nice puff piece for Presidential aspirant Gov. Inslee of Washington:

‘Climate warrior’ jolts 2020 presidential field

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee is about to take climate change politics to the next level.

No one has ever won a major statewide race, let alone a presidential nomination, with a single-issue, climate-focused candidacy. But Jay Inslee is about to try.

The Washington state governor launched a White House bid Friday that stands to have a significant effect on the electoral politics surrounding climate change.

Yeah, yeah and good for him. Incredibly, the article makes no mention of the failed, Inslee-backed Nov 2018 Washington State referendum on a carbon tax.

So what's the campaign bumper sticker? "Inslee 2020 - He's Learned From His Mistakes"? Or is this a sly stealth strategy, figuring no one will take seriously a guy who can't get it done?

Baffling. [Not baffling - brand promotion, obvi.]

MORE INTERESTING: The Times writes about the changing climate on climate change within the Republican Party. There are bothTrump v. Science and Trump v. Establishment angles; here we go:

With Climate Science on the March, an Isolated Trump Hunkers Down

By Coral Davenport   Feb 28, 2019

WASHINGTON — New efforts by President Trump and his staff to question or undermine the established science of climate change have created a widening rift between the White House on one side, and scientific facts, government agencies, and some leading figures in the president’s own party on the other.

Wait, "Coral" is writing on climate change? What next, "Hemp" on marijuana reform? Anyway, on the to leading figures:

At the same time, more senior Republicans, including those in Congress, are moving in the opposite direction, acknowledging the established science and publicly calling to reduce fossil fuel pollution.

To be sure, some Republicans continue to question, or, more commonly, to remain silent on the issue of human-caused climate change.

But in February, three of the top-ranking Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Greg Walden of Oregon, Fred Upton of Michigan, and John Shimkus of Illinois, published an op-ed on the website Real Clear Policy in which they said, “climate change is real” and called for innovations to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Similarly, in December, Senator John Barrasso, the Wyoming Republican who is chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in which he acknowledged his acceptance of climate science but also criticized the Paris Agreement and proposals to tax carbon dioxide emissions.

Do let me add that economist and Republican adviser N. Gregory Mankiw pushed a revenue-neutral carbon tax back in 2007.

But for more: Tyler Cowen notes that as some countries go green the price of fossil fuels will probably drop, which may not encourage laggards to also green up.

Megan McArdle notes that since the US isn't really the problem (Spoiler - look to China and India), decarbonizing the US won't be the main solution. What will? Investment and innovation that leads to technologies that can compete with fossil fuels without subsidies only the US, Europe and Japan might be able to afford.

No matter what rich-world economies do about their energy consumption, or what “moral leadership” they exert, people in the non-rich world are going to want to drive cars instead of walking; to wash their clothes in machines instead of in a river; to cool their houses with air-conditioning; to eat meat every day — in other words, to do and own all the things that make modern rich-world lives so safe and pleasant.

Developing countries aren’t going to put scarce resources into artificially expensive “green” ways of replicating the rich-world lifestyle; they’re going to get there by the least costly route. The solution isn’t figuring out how to subsidize or mandate green alternatives; it’s figuring out how to make them cheaper than the carbon-intensive versions.

 

And for anyone feeling a tinge of optimism, here are gathering storm clouds: Even if we wrestle energy and transportation to the canvas, agriculture and industry are huge greenhouse gas emitters.

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

The Supreme Court Takes A Second Amendment Case

The Supreme Court has taken up a 2nd Amendment case and the NY Times editors are worried that Brett Kavanaugh leans towards gun owner's rights more than his predecessor, Anthony Kennedy.

Here's hoping!

The arrival of Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year may have shifted the balance on the court in Justice Thomas’s favor. Replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was more willing to accept limits on gun rights, and who may have played a role in moderating Justice Antonin Scalia’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Kavanaugh joins other justices who have expressed absolutist views on the Second Amendment — Justice Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Samuel Alito Jr. In 2011, then-Judge Kavanaugh, serving on an appellate court, wrote a dissent in a follow-up case to Heller that signals his views. That ruling upheld a ban by Washington, D.C., on semiautomatic rifles and a separate gun registration requirement — in Judge Kavanaugh’s view, those provisions were unconstitutional and should not have been enforced.

Last week the court agreed to hear a case from New York City that would, for the first time in a decade, allow the justices to decide whether the right to bear arms is, as Justice Thomas complained last year, a “constitutional orphan.”

With a guest appearance in the LA Times, John Yoo and James Phillips are ready to lock and load:

Finally, the Supreme Court is taking up gun rights again

...

With its overdue decision to hear another 2nd Amendment case, the court can finally elevate the right to keep and bear arms to the same level as the others in the Bill of Rights. Often, the Supreme Court provides in its rulings a test lower courts can apply to determine whether a constitutional right has been infringed.

Up to now, the court has failed to articulate any test to protect gun rights, allowing lower courts to do as they please. So they have upheld 10-day waiting periods before a firearm purchase, bans on semiautomatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, and prohibitions on carrying a firearm, either openly, concealed, or both. Hence, courts have allowed governments to trample gun rights with only superficial justification, in ways inconceivable if the right at issue was speech or privacy. And for the last decade, the Supreme Court has only looked the other way.

...

Resolving the conflict between reasonable regulations and the constitutional right to bear arms, when brought forward in cases with real facts, will allow the Roberts Court to finally construct a framework for the protection of the 2nd Amendment, and compel the lower courts and state governments to follow it.

AS AN ASIDE: Put this 2nd Amendment stuff in the "RBG Will Never Retire And If She Dies They'll Keep It A Secret" file. My theory: even if ill and unable to perform her duties, while Trump is in power RBG will ignore requests to step down ("For the sake of the appearance of the Court"). Democrats will defy Republicans to impeach her, an effort that would die in Pelosi's House before it had a chance to fail in the Senate. We are nowhere near Maximum Partisan Breakdown.

Build The Compromise!

Jonah Goldberg contemplates the next government shutdown and makes a seemingly obvious point about Pelosi's power position:

Pelosi might be the first political adversary who is invulnerable to Trump’s attacks. Trump is dangerous to his preferred targets — other Republicans — precisely because he can sway his supporters, voters and MAGA media figures alike, to turn on those disloyal to him. He can’t do that with Pelosi.

Indeed, in an era of negative partisanship, Trump’s attacks make Pelosi stronger with her base and with many independents, who split evenly for Clinton and Trump in 2016, and who have largely turned against him and tuned out his appeals.

And because Pelosi controls a Democratic House, she is free to use her institutional powers against Trump in ways that Paul Ryan never could have, even if he had wanted to.

Well, yeah - Nancy is worried about tweets from Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, not Trump.

This does not bode well for a compromise, especially given Congress's long history of passing the buck on tough issues:

And while there are some Democrats and Republicans who would like to reach a compromise, both Pelosi and Trump have few incentives to do anything that will seem like capitulation. Many Republicans have already made peace with the idea of an emergency declaration, because it would let them off the hook for failing to pass wall funding.

Meanwhile, Trump is clearly enamored with the idea, believing it would convey strength and a willingness to fight. Yes, some court somewhere would instantly stay the order, but that would simply give everyone an issue to bleat about.

Trump would save face with his base and have a convenient bogeyman — runaway liberal judges! — to rail against. The move would divide the larger conservative movement while unifying Democrats, who’d scream “Dictator!” while quietly noodling about how a Democratic president could use the same powers for a “Green New Deal” or some other fantasy.

AllahPundit is on a similar page - the basis for a deal just isn't here:

Corralling Republicans is comparatively easy for Jared, though. All he needs to do is convince Trump and a critical mass of GOPers in Congress will surely follow. They live in fear for their political lives from him. Once Trump gave them cover by supporting the reform package, Jared knew he had the leverage to make a deal happen.

It’s conceivable that he’d duplicate that feat on immigration reform with Republicans. Get Trump to support a grand bargain and enough Senate GOPers will follow his lead to make passage viable. His problem is Democrats. And not just Democrats but Democrats who recently fought a month-long high-stakes political battle with Trump — and won. They’re less inclined to give him money for the wall right now than they would have been before the shutdown began. If either side is going to need extra concessions to make a deal, it’s Pelosi’s party, not Trump’s.

In fact, the big fight over the wall has made that particular plank of immigration enforcement a fetish for both sides. After going to the mat on it, Trump simply can’t accept a deal that lacks wall funding now. It doesn’t matter what else is in there — comprehensive e-Verify, some new limits to legal immigration (which Democrats will never agree to), etc. If he doesn’t get the wall, he loses, period. I don’t think the wall’s power as a fetish is *quite* as strong for Democrats, but it’s plenty strong. There are, I think, concessions that Trump might make that they’d seriously consider, like a permanent DREAM amnesty that includes a path to citizenship. But as I say, their “ask” now will be steeper than it was six weeks ago. It will take a major concession to make this happen.

So tell me: Is there any major concession Trump might make that the populist right would tolerate in the name of securing wall funding?

I can't elevate this to a Bold Prediction but do let me note that DC has a time-honored technique for resolving this sort of impasse - appoint a bipartisan commission to study the obvious and come back with a report telling us what we already knew, but let business continue as usual while we pretend we are learning something. As a recent example, the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission of 2010 was slated to report back after the 2010 elections. The commission was proposed in January 2010 as a fig leaf to break a debt-ceiling jam.

A Commission on Border Security could puzzle over all sorts of ideas to strengthen the border and in a calm debate there is no doubt in my mind that physical barriers would be a part of the solution for some parts of the border. The bigger problem is that the next real deadline past which both parties might want to kick this is the 2020 election. I don't see how Democrats on the panel could report favorably on physical barriers prior to the election.

Complicating the barrier question is the legal environment in the US. This Heritage report from 2009 sets the stage:

In some areas, erecting fences is the best way to tackle the illegal-entry problem. But the cost makes it important to use fencing only in areas with a low "melting point." The melting point is the time it takes for an individual to cross the border and "melt" into a landscape unnoticed. In urban border communities, spending money on physical barriers makes sense because individuals can easily cross the border and sneak quickly into the urban landscape (for example, one can hide in a building or steal a car and drive away). But in other areas, like the middle of the desert, the barren landscape makes it easy for Border Patrol agents to detect border crossers.

Well, yes but... Today, immigrants with children are happy to be detained in the US because they understand they won't be held for more than 20 days and our courts can't process their dubious asylum claims in that time frame. The Trump Administration is dealing with that by trying to keep asylum applicants on the Mexican side of the border.

Elizabeth Warren's Wealth Tax Contains The Germ Of A Decent Idea

Elizabeth Warren is trying to crowd the left lane of the Democratic primary race with her recently unveiled wealth tax. Some soundbites of my thinking:

As one of her proponents explains, the US tax code allows unrealized capital gains to go untaxed. This has been a big driver of the recent wealth surge, as Bezos, Gates and Zuckerberg can attest. But if untaxed capital gains is "the problem" why not address that? Change tax rules to force recognition of unrealized capital gains above some wealth threshold. Taxing wealth has dubious Constitutional validity (although John Roberts is smart enough to rationalize whatever he wants). Taxing income has a longer history and mark to market on capital gains is already used by financial institutions and individuals trading futures and index options (see tax straddles).

A high threshold and deferred payment of the tax liability will prevent the sort of cash flow crunch also addressed in the estate tax for closely held businesses - we don't want Ma and Pa Kent to be forced to sell the farm because they have a big unrecognized gain on the value of their land. Many of us also don't want Jeff Bezos to lose control of Amazon just to pay his taxes. A mechanism to allow deferred payment over, eg, ten years (the estate tax deferral is fourteen years) should leave folks plenty of time to work out the financing. Another benefit to the deferred payment idea: if a household has a mark to market gain of $20 million this year but a loss next year of $10 million, there is no need to write them a refund check; just adjust their deferred taxes due.

Of course, some folks out there DO want Bezos to lose control of Amazon, after which they would like to decide on a public flogging. The idea of taxing the rich is not exactly novel. The battle lines were drawn centuries ago between those who think wealth is attributable to the exploitation of others and those who believe in free markets and free people. For better or (mostly) worse, a lot of tired old arguments by unreconstructed Marxists and Socialists who believe that Wealth Is Evil will be trotted out yet again, and yet again they will persuade only the already-convinced.

Greg Mankiw pushes back, wondering who Taylor Swift exploited en route to her $300 million. Same question about JK Rowling of Harry Potter fame and fortune. Then again, if Warren could have stopped George Lucas in his tracks after "Return of the Jedi", she might have had my vote. Bygones.

On to some details. Here are proponents of a wealth tax explaining the problem with the deferred recognition, often forever (stepped-up basis at death), of capital gains:

ITEP

The U.S. Needs a Federal Wealth Tax

Another, closely related problem with relying on income taxes is that much of the income received by the richest Americans is “unrealized capital gains” which are not taxed. When the value of an asset rises, for all practical purposes that increase in value is income for the owner of the asset, but our current laws do not tax this income until the asset is sold. (In other words, capital gains on an asset are not “realized” until the asset is sold.)

This means that wealthy individuals who own a disproportionate share of all assets can defer paying tax on much of their income for years, allowing their wealth to grow much more rapidly. Meanwhile, most income of working Americans (income like wages or interest on a savings account) is taxed annually.[7]

While this may seem like an arcane matter, it allows the net worth of the wealthiest to build up much more rapidly and substantially. For example, one tax expert estimated in 2015 that Warren Buffett, whose net worth was then nearly $70 billion, would have been worth $9.5 billion if his capital gains had been taxed each year regardless of whether assets were sold.[8]

Well, OK - if the problem is that we are not recognizing that capital gains income, the obvious solution would be to recognize it, rather than taxing a bunch of other stuff.

I understand that fairness and logic will find no traction with the "Wealth Is evil" crowd, but the rest of us might look at this upcoming example and see some problems:

Imagine Susan and John are co-founders of HotTech Inc. They each hold founder's shares worth $100 MM. The shares don't pay a dividend so there taxable income is basically their salary, which is small.

So far, we see two people who had an idea, took some risks that paid off, created jobs and value, and are doing very well. Or, they're evil because they underpaid their workers and relied on basic research financed by the US government. Not important right now, because their paths are about to diverge.

Susan sells her $100 MM, pays $20MM in capital gains taxes and puts the remaining $80MM in a money market fund yielding 2%. Her annual taxable interest income is now $1.6MM, so put her down for another $0.6MM in Federal taxes on that.

John holds his shares, so his taxes remain tiny.

Now, hit them both with the Warren Wealth Tax. Susan, having already paid $20MM and owing $0.6 per annum, will pay an additional 2% on $30MM, or another $0.6MM per year. Over ten years that sums to $32MM.

John will pay 2% on $50MM, or $1MM per year. Over ten years that sums to - no calculators, please - $10MM.

Susan pays $32MM, John pays $10MM. This is fair, logical or desirable why? If the 20% capital gains tax is Susan's "fair share" and she has paid it, why keep taxing her on her wealth? If the income from her investments is an issue, well, she is paying tax on that too. Why keep taxing the poor woman?

Well, because Wealth Is Evil, sure. But other reasons?

Well, maybe that 20% capital gains rate is "too low". It does represent some compromise between our desire to encourage capital formation and risk taking on the one hand without allowing absurd concentrations of wealth on the other. And maybe we have tipped too far in one direction. All debatable, but that is not likely to be the debate we get.

On the other hand, this debate may not be hopeless! Here is just what we did NOT expect - common sense from a Matt Yglesias Voxsplainer:

Warren’s proposal, of course, is for a progressive wealth tax in which the 2 percent rate does not apply to the first $50 million and the 3 percent rate only kicks in when you have more than $1 billion, so nobody would actually be taxed that much. The operation of the tax would, however, exert a dramatic gravitational pull on large fortunes and tend to pull them down to the tax thresholds.

That’s especially true because the mere existence of the wealth tax would, on the margin, encourage wealthy individuals to dissipate their fortunes on charitable giving and lavish consumption. If you try to horde wealth the government is going to tax it, so you might as well spend it.

This is, in turn, exactly the standard economic case against wealth taxes. In a very basic, stripped-down view, the accumulation of capital (buildings, machinery, business equipment, etc.) leads to higher wages and living standards. A wealth tax, by discouraging the accumulation of financial capital, could also discourage the accumulation of physical capital and thus lead to lower wages and living standards.

Most everyone agrees that a highly simplified two-factor model of how the economy works is not accurate, but the extent to which a wealth tax appears even remotely attractive will hinge on whether you think it’s a decent approximation of the real world or a wild fantasy cooked-up to serve the self-interest of plutocrats.

Wait, what? Capital formation is a Good Thing and deferring taxes on capital gains might encourage it? Fortunately, I was sitting down when I read this.

Let's segue to macroeconomics briefly, with Paul Krugman as a launching pad. I mostly agree with his point on individual incentives, subject to some jeering in which I will later engage:

Wouldn’t it hurt incentives? Probably not much. Think about it: How much would entrepreneurs be deterred by the prospect that, if their big ideas pan out, they’d have to pay additional taxes on their second $50 million?

Fair enough, but what about the overall economy? I will guess that whatever wealth tax is paid will come exclusively out of savings. *IF* the government uses the tax revenue to reduce the deficit (under President Howard "Half Caf Venti" Schultz) then private savings has gone down, national savings has gone up, and not much else will happen.

But let's suppose President Warren gets that tax revenue. She will surely spend it on new programs, as per her mandate from the voters. Standard economics will describe that as a fiscal stimulus.

Now, in 2009 the conversion of savings to spending would have been a great idea. But in 2019? Well, the unemployment rate is low (as is labor force participation, so where are we really?) and the Fed is worried that the US economy is near full throttle. They may choose to offset fiscal stimulus with monetary tightening. The effect of higher interest rates will be to discourage investment and consumption.

So, hmm - even though John and other would-be entrepreneurs still have that gold-rush gleam in their eyes, the Fed is making the pursuit of their dreams more difficult, and total investment is falling. Is that a Good Thing? Debatable!

That is my stab at the macroeconomics, anyway - a tax that discourages capital formation, however slightly, reduces capital formation. Or so I think. The pundit with a Nobel doesn't address that. And yes, I'm with you - I too would rather know what he thinks. And he may be thinking what I am wondering - maybe the world has too much savings and fiscal stimulus in the US can create jobs here or elsewhere.

Or one might argue that the wealth tax can't be timed - it will be a long term feature of the US economy. We will be just a mite less friendly to capital formation and it won't hurt us.

I did promise some jeering. An obvious guess is that the $50MM threshold is just an opening bid. Once the principal is established, that threshold will be moving down, not up. It may even reach the point where Warren (net worth variously estimated at $8MM to $18MM) is paying it. Even Prof. Krugman of the lucrative book deals may be asked to pay up! Keep in mind - unless you're talking to Jeff Bezos, the definition of wealth is "more than I've got". The Wealth Is Evil crowd will never lack for ideas on how to spend Other People's Money, and they will never believe that if you can pluck one feather from the goose laying the golden eggs you shouldn't push your luck and pluck ten.

As to the level of compliance with a wealth tax, the discussion seems optimistic. Matt Yglesias does note that the OECD countries have been scaling back their wealth taxes. Paul Krugman offers this:

Would such a plan be feasible? Wouldn’t the rich just find ways around it? Saez and Zucman argue, based on evidence from Denmark and Sweden, both of which used to have significant wealth taxes, that it wouldn’t lead to large-scale evasion if the tax applied to all assets and was adequately enforced.

That is actually pretty comical. Saez and Zucman are both French and have focused on the economics of wealth so the odds are pretty good they are familiar with the debacle of the French wealth tax. Let's say, compliance was less than hoped for, as many of the targeted rich simply left the country. The tax has now been scaled back to include real estate (harder to relocate abroad) but not financial assets. Why is the French experience not talked up by wealth tax advocates? Well, I have my guess.

And I have to clip these stories: first, from 2014 the French stab at a top income bracket of 75%:

France forced to drop 75% supertax after meagre returns

François Hollande’s unpopular tax changes that imposed a 75% rate on earnings above €1m (£780,000) will quietly disappear into the history books from Thursday.

...

Although supported by the left, the reform sparked accusations of an anti-business agenda. After the “supertax” was announced in September 2012 the government was accused of shooting itself in the foot by risking an exodus of high-profile personalities. Business leaders expressed fears that investors would pull out of France.

France’s richest man, Bernard Arnault, the chief executive of luxury group LVMH, took out Belgian nationality, and the actor Gérard Depardieu also moved across the border to Belgium before obtaining Russian citizenship.

High-earning French footballers threatened strike action, while league bosses warned they would no longer be able to attract world class players.

Why can't the US be more like France?

And from 2017, their wealth tax:

Exodus of the richest: Wealth tax is forcing 12,000 millionaires PER YEAR out of France, says Prime Minister as he lowers tariffs for the better off

• Prime Minister Edouard Philippe says change in tax on wealth is necessary
• In 2016 alone, some 12,000 millionaires left France - highest in the world
• French wealth tax currently applies to personal assets over 1.3 million euros
• President Macron's new tariffs will only apply to real eastate over 1.3m euros 

Per this story, more tax exiles were fleeing France than China. Again, why can't the US be more like France and stop with the stupid ideas?

EXHORTATION: Don't dump on Warren because of her faux Native heritage scam; dump on her because of her faux medical bankruptcy scam. Gail Heriot, Todd Zywicki and Megan McArdle cast light into this darkness years ago.

Sunday Morning

Away we go!

I'm Still Stuck In Covington

Tucker Carlson and Caitlin Flanagan wrote n the media meltdown over the Covington HS kids. Mr. Carlson claims the incident shows that the media hates a lot of the oppressive, privileged whites with whom they are forced to share a country:

Tucker Carlson: There's no sympathy for Covington Catholic teens in America's newsrooms

...

For a few overheated hours on Saturday, a group of boys from a Catholic high school in Kentucky became the most hated figures in America.

Television anchors denounced them as bigots. Journalists with Harvard degrees called them “privileged.” Republican commentators scolded them as bad Christians. Famous actors suggested they should be hunted down and punched in the face. Some on social media called for them to be killed.

...

You’d think somebody, at some point, in media land, would wonder how all this misreporting is affecting the kids who were falsely accused. But no. There’s no sympathy for Covington Catholic in America’s newsrooms. In the mind of your average reporter in Washington, these kids are from a different country. Less than that, actually. They’re from hostile country, a place we must subdue for our own safety.

Ms. Flanagan provides an excellent recap but does not take as alarmist a tone:

The Media Botched the Covington Catholic Story

And the damage to their credibility will be lasting.

...

How could the elite media—The New York Times, let’s say—have protected themselves from this event, which has served to reinforce millions of Americans’ belief that traditional journalistic outlets are purveyors of “fake news”? They might have hewed to a concept that once went by the quaint term “journalistic ethics.” Among other things, journalistic ethics held that if you didn’t have the reporting to support a story, and if that story had the potential to hurt its subjects, and if those subjects were private citizens, and if they were moreover minors, you didn’t run the story. You kept reporting it; you let yourself get scooped; and you accepted that speed is not the highest value. Otherwise, you were the trash press.

I don't think the problem is simply that some news is "Fake", as in wrong and not credible. And its not even simply that the liberal press routinely slants to the left. The problem is as Tucker described it: they hate us.

OK, not all of them, and hopefully, not all of us. But our divisions are deeper and certain forms of bigotry have moved from common to fashionable. As an example, I had a friend tell me twenty years ago that Catholic-bashing was the last acceptable bigotry. However true that was then, today it seems to have moved from "acceptable" to required out on the left.

Or, think about how folks on the left spent Martin Luther King weekend calling for teenagers to be hunted down and punched in the face. Uhh, non-violence is no longer the answer? I guess not. To Be Fair, after The Nation wrote some Resistance Porn glorifying the antifa and their use of violence they felt obliged to auto-rebut. And when the NY Times ran a faux-balanced piece on the antifa and the ethics of punching Nazis their readers revolted in the comments. The bradly shared view was that questions about the appropriate use of political violence are much simpler than the Times seemed to think. My fave "Questions were raised" passage, from the story:

In the past, antifa activists have engaged with people who were clearly something less than outright neo-Nazis, raising questions about who, if anyone, deserves to be punched and whether there is such a thing as legitimate political violence.

I want to beleive that punching high school boys remains a fringe pre-occupation on the left. However, the idea that this attitude of "I love America, its just the damn people in flyover country that I can't stand" did not start with Trump. It didn't start with Obama, either, but in recent years his 'bitter-clinger' pop sociology remains a high water mark:

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter,they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comes from the same bi-coastal elitism:

"I know there are only 60 days left to make our case -- and don't get complacent, don't see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think, well, he's done this time. We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."

Obviously, once you start looking more examples are easy to find. A few losers, presumably mostly white and male, harrassed Sarah Jeong, so that makes it OK for her to work on the Times editorial desk while hating white people. Well, because the "hate" is really just a fun way to display her Wokeness. Har de har. But let's have a second "To be Fair" moment - back in a NY Times column on this topic the readers actually seemed to hold stale, bourgeoisie values about casual displays of hateful rhetoric.

I remain hopeful that most people would be appalled by the prevalence of sewer rats polluting Twitter. But our news media has taken up residence there and is starting to embrace the values, and the stench.

MORE ON COVINGTON: Times pundits fear for the media and the country.

Frank Bruni: Covington and the Pundit Apocalypse /  Our hasty condemnation of these teenagers reveals the cold truth about hot takes.

Ross Douthat: The Covington Scissor /  Welcome to another controversy algorithmically designed to tear America apart.

David Brooks: How We Destroy Lives Today / Will the Covington Catholic High School fiasco change social media?

Farhad Manjoo: Never Tweet/  The controversy over the Covington students shows why American journalism should disengage from Twitter.

I will let Frank Bruni speak for all:

But will we [in the media] pause next time to make sure that we understand what we’re reacting to and whom we’re condemning? Even if that means fewer retweets? Will we filter our responses through a mature acknowledgment of what, in real time, we can and cannot take for granted?

Only if we're honest about what we’ve been doing and why we’ve been doing it.

With everything from Twitter followers to television bookings, we’re rewarded for fierce conviction, for utter certainty, for emphatically taking sides and staying unconditionally faithful to what we’ve pushed for and against in the past. We each have our brand, and the narrower and more unyielding it is, the more currency it has and the more loyal our consumers. Instead of bucking the political tribalism in America, we ride it.

We react to news by trying to fit it into the argument that we routinely make, the grievance that we usually raise, the fury or angst or sorrow that we typically peddle. We have our narrative, and we’re on the lookout for comments and developments that back it up. The response to the initial footage of the Covington boys — and, in particular, to the one who wore a red MAGA cap as he stood before and stared at the drumming veteran — adhered to this dynamic.

We have an economically troubled media world where journalists and pundits are trying to secure their brands (and paychecks) by appealing to the folks who buy books, orovide clicks and likes, retweet stories, tune in to see them on television, and so on.

By and large, that means they are trying to appeal to the passionate and engaged. Folks from the political fringes tend to be over-represented among those who care. That reality has made Rush, Sean, Rachel and Paul plenty of money. Back in the day, appealing to the fringes would NOT have helpful for broadcasters, who needed to appeal to a... wait for it... broad audience. In the new internet world of narrowcasting cable, websites, downloadable books and so on, a narrow but enthusiastic audience is suitably rewarding, emotionally and financially.

And here we are. A divided country with media coverage provided by journalists riding those divisions for their own relevance and paycheck. Not to mention a current President who barely pretends to be trying to appeal to everyone (unlike our recent "Uniter, not a Divider" and "Not a Red America and a Blue America but a Purple America", where there was at least a pretense of appealing to unity.)

I don't see this ending well. But have a great day!

OK, SERIOUSLY, SMILE: If -IF - these guys really have found a cause and cure for Alzheimer's, current patients may be stabilized or reversed and aging Boomers and their families will be spared a long, difficult demise. Of course, the founder may become a billionaire and President Ocasio-Cortez will feel obliged to denounce his shameless exploitation of the rest of us, but on balance, good news.

 

Trump Moves To Deferred Victory Status

This shutdown compromise and three-week reopening of the government does not seem to be the victory Trump was hoping for.

Rain In January?!?

The traditional "Rain, rain, go away" open thread.

Clickbait Journalism

The economics of journalism, especially print, have gone to hell but newsies will take us all with them as they go. Jill Lepore of The New Yorker describes the journey. Her piece could have been titled "This One Weird Trick Will Save Your Newspaper" but she went with the comparably click-baity "Does Journalism Have A Future?".

Since you ask, yes, I am still fuming that the NY Times business model now embraces rushing to the front of the left-wing Twitter mobs and joining in. I'd like to pretend that in happier days they would try to provide perspective and facts but of course, twelve years ago they were dead-enders clinging to their favored Duke lacrosse narrative long after reality had come home to most others. Agenda-driven crusading has been a Times staple for years (who else remembers their crusade to include women at Augusta National from, hmm, I don't remember. "Flood the zone" was the key phrase and it came from Howell Raines in 2002.)

Feel Great, Feel The Hate

The legacy media and the Twitter mob never stood a chance of processing accurately this incident involving Covington High School kids and a Native American Elder.

Let's see: in one corner, or anyway, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial waiting for their school buses, we have some (mostly) white Catholic high school boys with a scattering of MAGA hats in DC for the March for Life events. In the other, a Native American there for an Indigenous People's March.

To belabor the obvious, how will the media come out in a showdown between Evil White Christian Trump-loving Anti-Abortions Sons of the Oppressive Patriarchy and a beloved minority? My goodness, those high schoolers might even include a young Brett Kavanaugh!

The narrative writes itself (aided by Nathan Phillips, the Native Elder, activist and provocateur), as anyone familiar with the Duke lacrosse or UVA rape fantasies has learned.

Well. Just to pick out one "journalist" as an example, Sarah Mervosh of the flailing NY Times had a choice to throw in with the Feel Great, Feel the Hate viral mob, or actually dig for some facts and perspective. Her choice was utterly predictable; her original fan fiction submission was headlined "Viral Video Shows Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native Elder". 

That was walked back slightly to "Viral Video Shows Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Surrounding Native Elder". Closer! Even the original video suggested something that longer video makes obvious - these students "surrounded" Phillips by the clever tactic of standing around while he pushed into the center of their group. We all know corrections are emotionally challenging at the Times so there were a few hours of suspense while we wondered if Times would fly even closer to reality or simply Move On. Somwhat surprisingly, cooler heads prevailed.

The Walkback of Shame continued with this follow-up piece:

Fuller Picture Emerges of Viral Video Between Native American Man and Catholic Students

A fuller and more complicated picture emerged on Sunday of the videotaped encounter between a Native American man and a throng of high school boys wearing “Make America Great Again” gear outside the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.

Interviews and additional video footage suggest that an explosive convergence of race, religion and ideological beliefs — against a national backdrop of political tension — set the stage for the viral moment. Early video excerpts from the encounter obscured the larger context, inflaming outrage.

So actual reporting, fact-gathering and interviewing led to a new perspective? Looking at two minutes of video and asking a longtime activist for his take on events is not reliable? Who could have guessed?

Robby Soave of Reason stared at the replays and delivered an invaluable booth review (Spoiler: the ruling on the field was overturned). CNN and USA Today are rethinking their reflexive response. As to Truth and Justice? We'll have to wait and see.

As to Lessons Learned, it's hardly news that certain stories, especially with Trump bashing, male-bashing, and Christian bashing themes, are catnip to the media and, like cats, they lose their minds. Sometimes they manage to sober up in a day or two, so giving these outrages time to breathe is a good idea. Of course, sometimes they simply move on without owning up to their deplorable instincts. Will anyone "journalist" lose their job over this? Don't be silly.

Secondly, the media behavior is symptomatic of a larger problem. It is all very well for folks at cocktail parties to chit-chat about Washington dysfunction and bemoan the child-like behavior of Trump, Pelosi et al.

But Washington is a mirror. We elected these people and they are empowered by the reality that this is a country where a huge part of the commentariat is delighted to, just as a random example, condemn a group of high school boys on the basis of thirty seconds reflection. Those "reporters" are paid to generate clicks and likes, and there is no money in the middle - the audience appetite at the Times is for Trump-bashing and conservative-bashing 24/7, and that is what is delivered. THAT is the key reality for the "Reality-Based" community.

The same could be said about certain right-wing outlets, but only fools imagine that the combined power of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart can rival MSNBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, USA Today, the NY Times, the WaPo, et al.

We're divided because the energized fringes write checks for subscriptions, books, sponsored products and political campaigns. Media can't support itself on the old model where the advertising revenue subsidizes the news division, so what can they do? Well, this. They draw an audience by feeding the hate and its hard to see that changing.

I do wish the NY Times still had a budget (and an appetite) for the Public Editor position. I would love to see the Q&A with the no-doubt-delightful Sarah Mervosh, who had a solo byline on the original "Mobbed" fantasy and shares a byline on the Walkback of Shame piece. I imagine this:

 "Did you report on Covington High?"

 "I report on everything high".

Yeah, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

You Can't Make This Stuff Up. Unless You Do.

Jason Leopold, now performing at Buzzfeed, had Trump in handcuffs, with a story that garnered huge attention and sparked a denial from Mueller.

Those with hearts of stone will remember Jason Leopold from his days as a "Rove to be indicted" fantasist back in May 2006. Yeah, it all went to hell for Leopold and the only detail I remember was their changing of Rove's imminent arrest from "24 hours" to "24 business hours". I've never seen that term before or since, but it was a fun marker in the "Is there anything a hopeless partisan won't believe?" debate.

I actually have a laughably simple explanation for how we arrived at this train wreck that does not involve wilful lying by anyone. Suppose Cohen imagined the ongoing Moscow project as a big payday for himself and was Keeping Hope Alive while Trump, who had been chasing this for decades, had mentally written it off.

Then, somewhere in the course of a two hour meeting on other things, or during an elevator ride, Cohen gets two minutes on Moscow, which Trump tunes out.

Now, months later, Cohen has to testify to Congress. He has a clear memory of discussing Moscow with Trump, so he asks Trump what he should say. Trump has a clear non-memory (if that is even possible) of the topic being raised, so he instructs Cohen to say it was never discussed after January.

Trump is sincere but wrong-ish. Is it a "discussion" if he is not listening and gives utterly distracted answers such as "Yeah, yeah, sounds great"? Is there other evidence of his engagement, such as emails he clearly wrote or approved?. However, Cohen sincerely believes Trump was engaged in these discussions, so he interprets Trump's directive as an order to lie and testifies to that effect to Mueller.

Obviously, the theory that this is a misunderstanding rests in large part on the actual emails. Is Trump crazy enough to have written an email to Cohen with something like "It is important that you lie in your testimony to Congress"? That would be harder to spin.

But if Trump wrote "You should testify that I don't remember any discussions about Moscow after January", is that an order to lie? Cohen may think so since he believed it to be false. However it would take more evidence to prove that Trump was aware that his statement was false (or made in reckless disregard of the truth) rather than simply an example of a memory lapse.

BTW, I blame sports talk radio for this word usage problem - callers, reporters, players and coaches routinely use "lie" when "misremember" would be more appropriate.

Why Not The Best?

If Washington is really committed to becoming a full time Snooki & Company DC Shore reality show, let's dial it up!

Obviously progressive It-girl Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is too young to be Constitutionally eligible for the Presidency in 2020. So what?!? And some hidebound traditionalist states may have ballot rules for the Democratic primaries that require a primary candidate to be eligible for the office they seek - change the rules!

Democratic strategists should make a real push to get her on the primary ballots and give her a chance to accumulate delegates prior to the Democratic convention. That will let her be a formal power-player and ought to energize Democratic efforts to register and rally the youth vote, the way Barack and Bernie did and Hillary did not.

If the DC governing class doesn't want or expect to be taken seriously, then embrace the new reality. If they're just going to give us a show, give us a good one. Run AOC!

Quite The Terror Plan

Attacking the White House with an anti-tank rocket? This was a bold terror plan from a guy who had never fired a weapon.

Feel Good Moment Du Jour

UCLA gymnast Katelyn Ohashi puts a smile on everyone's face.

Drinking The Haterade At The FBI

OK, wow - the NY Times tells us that after Comey was fired the FBI complemented their criminal investigation of Trump with a counterintelligence probe. No reporting on whether the FBI sought, or found probable cause for, FISA warrants for folks other than Carter Page.

Why the revelation? Who knows? But a Trump-philic spin would be that Team Mueller is shifting the goalposts and trying to let The Resistance down gently. Note this deeply buried explanation of the two types of investigations:

The F.B.I. conducts two types of inquiries, criminal and counterintelligence investigations. Unlike criminal investigations, which are typically aimed at solving a crime and can result in arrests and convictions, counterintelligence inquiries are generally fact-finding missions to understand what a foreign power is doing and to stop any anti-American activity, like thefts of United States government secrets or covert efforts to influence policy. In most cases, the investigations are carried out quietly, sometimes for years. Often, they result in no arrests.

No arrests, no indictments, just a deeper understanding - well, that might cover the last two years. Hard news for The Resistance, if that is where this is headed.

PILING ON: Paul Mirengoff unloads.

OH, PLEASE: Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare is providing an example of the Power of Positive Rationalization. Or I am. Or both. His theme is that this investigation was about Russian interference in our election, not Trump per se. Supporting Congressional ass-covering testimony:

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts (emphasis added).

And for emphasis:

It was about Russia. Full stop. It was always about Russia. And it still is about Russia.

The "full stop" is important so the reader can catch his breath after laughing out loud. Just off-hand, we know Team Hillary paid Steele (through cutouts) for dirt on Trump peddled by Russian government officials, some of which hit the US press before the election. Were the Russians hoping to aid both sides with the idea that the eventual loser of the election would scream "Collusion" and undermine the winner? Crafty!

Now, some people know that could not have been happening because US intel concluded that the Russkies started out helping both sides and fomenting division but eventually threw in behind Trump. Of course, many of those same people believe the intel behind Saddam's WMDs was politicized, but they know that didn't happen here. Whatever.

So how hard has Mueller pushed the Steele/Fusion GPS people? How many Facebook folks have been brought in to determine whether Russian moles are operating from the inside there? How deep an understanding has he tried to develop?

As an alternative to the "Always about Russia" paradigm, let's imagine this was always about the (bipartisan) Washington establishment rejecting the Trump insurgency. In that model, Hillary gets a pass, Facebook gets a pass, and yes, the investigation is all about Trump.

LAST LAUGH: From the Times, the FBI knows best:

A vigorous debate has taken shape among some former law enforcement officials outside the case over whether F.B.I. investigators overreacted in opening the counterintelligence inquiry during a tumultuous period at the Justice Department. Other former officials noted that those critics were not privy to all of the evidence and argued that sitting on it would have been an abdication of duty.

So if we knew what the FBI knew we would be reassured. This, from the same folks who resisted many oversight subpoenas just to spare themselves embarrassment. Strangely unconvincing, and where is the trust?

Girding For Ginsburg

Per Politico:

Trump White House urging allies to prepare for possible RBG departure

After an ailing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg missed oral arguments, the Trump team began early groundwork for another potential confirmation battle.

I like this detail in their lede:

The White House is reaching out to political allies and conservative activist groups to prepare for an ailing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s possible death or departure from the Supreme Court — an event that would trigger the second bitter confirmation battle of President Donald Trump’s tenure.

"Second" bitter battle? OK, the Kavanaugh brawl dialed it up to Bork-Thomas levels, but the Gorsuch nomination was filibustered and the Republicans went nuclear. Critics later observed that Kavanaugh was sufficiently controversial that Republicans might not have chosen to go nuclear in his defense, but post-Gorsuch the die had been cast. Ah, well, water, bridge... We do have video of the Resistance brainstorming session that led to the Gorsuch filibuster.

Top Tax Rates Outside The Bubble

Progressives agree and no one else matters - sky-high tax rates on "the rich" are what's best for all of us! But not so fast.

THE ETERNAL CAVEAT: Who are "the rich"? Paul Krugman is always going n about billionaires and private jets until tax reform is on the table and then he wants to raise taxes on everyone earning more than $250,000 (which is roughly where Bill Clinton's "millionaire's tax" kicked in).

However, in the current Ocasio-Cortez version of the progressive fantasy, we will see dream rates on those earning above $10 million per annum. This WaPo howler barely notes the problem that much of that high-end income is capital gains, not tedious W-2 wages and salary. Sure, let's raise the capital gains rate to 70% and see whether people volunteer to sell assets and incur the taxes. Bet they don't!

The Wall Is Coming!

The Wall is coming, or anyway, Trump will head to the border to talk about it.

Slow-Walking Out of Syria

Trump's prompt withdrawal from Syria may be delayed.

Saturday Night Lights

Bring on the Cowboys!