MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Elizabeth Warren’

Coulter: How to Talk to Your Children About Elizabeth Warren

Posted by M. C. on March 12, 2020

At the risk of hopelessly confusing Brian Williams and Mara Gay, here are some interesting numbers: At least 60% of Democratic votes come from women, according to estimates by Pew and CNN. (This figure isn’t widely advertised: Democrats don’t want people to realize that they are a party of women.)

Warren was rejected by liberal women.

They also rejected the other women, the gay guy and candidates of color.

Not much comment on how the race devolved into being about old, rich, white males.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/11/coulter-how-to-talk-to-your-children-about-elizabeth-warren/

by Ann Coulter

Some people see Elizabeth Warren’s poor showing on Super Tuesday as just another Democratic hopeful losing her bid.

I see something darker. I see the ugly heart that beats beneath our supposed “democracy.” Frankly, I’m afraid.

Warren’s exit from the race is Brett Kavanaugh’s sneering grimace as he attempted to rape and murder Christine Blasey Ford [editor’s note: allegedly]; it is the smirks on the faces of those fascist 14-year-old anti-choice fanatics from Covington, Kentucky; it is our president constantly raping every woman in sight.

To my children, I say, you will be OK. I won’t sugarcoat it — this is truly horrible. But once we have recovered from this devastating blow, life will go on. You will put one foot in front of the other and …

OH! IS LIFE EVEN WORTH LIVING ANYMORE???

I know all women across America agree with me. After Warren dropped out, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell ran “Portraits of Grief” on his nightly show, featuring some of the victims of her failed bid. Rachel Maddow raced to Massachusetts for an exclusive interview with the heroine herself.

And The New York Times published a piece by Sarah Smarsh titled, “I Am Burning With Fury and Grief Over Elizabeth Warren. And I Am Not Alone.”

Let me remind you, the Times is the “Newspaper of Record.”

Some say Smarsh’s op-ed reads like a parody of sexist stereotypes — emotional, childlike, devoid of logic. I say she has proved beyond cavil that Warren’s defeat is an American holocaust.

Her evidence:

FACT: “When Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, it hurt in similar ways … [t]his election, though, I thought Senator Elizabeth Warren … might go to the White House.”

Q.E.D.

FACT: “[M]y father and maternal grandmother were talking politics at my kitchen table in Kansas. ‘This is the best chance that a woman has ever had to become the president,’ said my dad … ‘Now. It’s now.’”


This isn’t anecdotal. Marsh taped the conversation.

FACT: “[Warren] placed fourth in the Nevada caucuses — in spite of thoroughly winning a Las Vegas candidates debate …”

It’s called “science”!

You wonder whether there is a crisis of sexism in America? There you have it, in black and white.

Nevertheless, Smarsh persisted! Although I think her argument was already water-tight, she also went to the beach and read a novel. And guess what she read? A fictional account of the oppression of women in Colonial Massachusetts!

(We can disregard the near-contemporaneous observations of Alexis de Tocqueville: He was a man. Of course, that’s what he’d say.)

In truth, I don’t believe any of this. I think Smarsh’s ramblings could have been written by a 7-year-old.

Her op-ed does, however, illustrate three points:

1) The perniciousness of participation trophies.

When I was a kid, you got a trophy for winning. Now you get a trophy for showing up. The Participation Trophy phenomenon always struck many of us as wrong and aesthetically displeasing. We wondered what would become of children raised in an “Everybody Gets an ‘A’” culture.

Smarsh’s op-ed is the answer. Entire generations of birdbrains expect a trophy when their candidate runs.

2) The mistake we make as a society in sanctifying tantrums.

Whether it’s a Yale co-ed screaming in the face of a faculty member, hurling insults at him over Halloween costumes, or antifa thugs running around in masks smashing things because a conservative speaker is in the vicinity, the lesson to generations of young people has been: Stamping your feet and throwing things will NOT be a wasted effort.

3) Numbers and statistics aren’t liberals’ thing; personal narrative is.

At the risk of hopelessly confusing Brian Williams and Mara Gay, here are some interesting numbers: At least 60% of Democratic votes come from women, according to estimates by Pew and CNN. (This figure isn’t widely advertised: Democrats don’t want people to realize that they are a party of women.)

Warren was rejected by liberal women.

She was also resoundingly nixed by African Americans and Hispanics. Even her bete noire, Michael Bloomberg, beat Warren among black and Hispanic voters.

(Of course, Bloomberg’s shellacking of Warren at the polls must be balanced against Smarsh’s conclusion about Warren “thoroughly winning” the debate where she bashed Bloomberg.)

Mystified by empirical evidence, liberal women think their personal narratives make fascinating reading. After all, it’s about THEM! How do I know Trump is a monster? I’ve gained 20 pounds since his election! Their op-eds should begin, “Dear Diary.”

In lieu of facts, they fill up their columns with pabulum. Smarsh heard two drunks screaming at the kitchen table — as she put it, “alcohol was involved” — and rushed to hit the “record” button. This is gold!

If liberal women could ever learn to formulate an actual argument, someday, instead of boasting “Nevertheless, she persisted,” they might be able to proclaim, “Nevertheless, she prevailed.”

 

Be seeing you

wp-1496315732786

Look alikes

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bernie And Elizabeth’s Politics Of Envy – An INDEPENDENT Mind

Posted by M. C. on February 24, 2020

Politicians tap into envy for political ends. Politicians manipulate people to support policies which feed their primitive desire to strike down the rich and successful. This is why envy politics can be so destructive to society—it divides us rather than brings us together; it tears us down.

It makes you question their motives especially when you examine the record of capitalism and free markets. It has only been in the past 200 of the 100,000 years or so of human history that we have escaped mass poverty. If you think about it, poverty has been the natural condition of mankind since we evolved large brains and opposing thumbs.

The magic that happened was what we call capitalism or the free market system: individual liberty, private property, free markets, free trade, capital, entrepreneurship, and tolerance. These forces literally rocketed us into prosperity.

https://anindependentmind.com/2019/11/05/bernie-and-elizabeths-politics-of-envy/#more-979

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are angry critics of free markets and rich people. They paint a bleak picture of America as a population of downtrodden, defeated people subjugated by billionaires and capitalism. The record is just the opposite, so one wonders why they and their supporters have this view of our world. The answer is that their anger is driven by envy and a desire to deprive successful people of the fruits of their success, a thing the envious have never achieved. Politicians exploit this primitive emotion for their own political ends which is the power to control us.

*************************************************

“Envy” is “to wish that you had a quality or possession that another person has”. In psychological terms, it refers to an emotion which “occurs when a person lacks another’s [perceived] superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it“. All major religions condemn envy (as in one of Christianity’s seven deadly sins).

The Wikipedia article cites envy as a major source of unhappiness (“It begins with the almost frantic sense of emptiness inside oneself…”). It is a powerful human emotion and it has the potential to motivate one to harm those who are the object of one’s envy.

The most interesting aspect of envy is that it changes and diminishes with age as we are more accepting of who we are, except for one thing: money. It was the only envious trait that increased with age.

Politicians tap into envy for political ends. Politicians manipulate people to support policies which feed their primitive desire to strike down the rich and successful. This is why envy politics can be so destructive to society—it divides us rather than brings us together; it tears us down.

The leading Progressive presidential candidates are scrambling over each other to exploit envy. To make sure I was not exaggerating their positions, I just read all of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders’ policies. Almost every issue they addressed was based on envy.

The core of their Progressive beliefs is that the game is rigged in favor of the rich and biased against workers, women, people of color, veterans, LGBTQ+, native Americans, convicts, immigrants, tenants, homeowners, the poor, students, farmers, the sick, and the aged. I might have missed some interest groups.

The problem, they say, is greedy capitalists whose debt-fueled corporations produce shoddy, overpriced products, and exploit underpaid, overworked, abused, and mistreated workers. These capitalists, a mere 1% of the population, have a stranglehold on Washington and use their political power to grab 99% of the wealth and squeeze the other 99% of honest hardworking people who futilely struggle against this corrupt system. Capitalists, they say, don’t want you to make a decent living, get an education, receive good medical care, have good housing, have economic security in your old age, or live in a clean environment.

Their solution is that the government, through a vast river of social programs funded by taxing the rich, can cure these problems and create a just, fair economic and political system (which, obviously, isn’t capitalism). As a corollary, they wish to confiscate and redistribute the wealth of the corrupt and disgusting “ultra-rich”.

If you doubt my summation of their programs and policies, go to Bernie and Elizabeth’s web sites and see for yourself.

Here is a snippet from Bernie’s website:

For too long, these greedy corporate CEOs have rigged the tax code, killed market competition, and crushed the lives and power of workers and communities across America. Year after year we’ve seen wages slashed and thousands of workers laid off, all while the richest corporate CEOs pay themselves huge bonuses.

These people hate capitalism, entrepreneurs, successful corporations, and rich (i.e., successful) people. Every one of their policies assumes an evil strawman (capitalism, billionaires, corporations) and imposes draconian rules to control this “corrupt” behavior.

Everything they say about capitalism is wrong. Perhaps you might think this is an arrogant, absurd thing to say, but their analysis of society, the economy, and capitalism is based on falsehoods, statistical manipulation, incorrect historical analysis, and theories that have been proven wrong throughout mankind’s history. Their Progressive policies will destroy our dynamic economy and condemn us to stagnation and poverty.

It makes you question their motives especially when you examine the record of capitalism and free markets. It has only been in the past 200 of the 100,000 years or so of human history that we have escaped mass poverty. If you think about it, poverty has been the natural condition of mankind since we evolved large brains and opposing thumbs.

The magic that happened was what we call capitalism or the free market system: individual liberty, private property, free markets, free trade, capital, entrepreneurship, and tolerance. These forces literally rocketed us into prosperity.

It is a myth that poverty is caused by capitalism, billionaires, and corporations. They are the fount of progress. Wealth is created by entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs who start enterprises that succeed in the marketplace. Jobs didn’t become a billionaire because he forced us to buy iPhones.

It is also a myth that progress is confined to the 1%. The belief that inequality is the cause of poverty is a myth. The whole concept of inequality in a free market society is irrelevant. Everyone in a capitalist society has benefited, even those at the bottom. There would be nothing more destructive to our economic well-being than eliminating billionaires: those who have become successful by meeting the needs of consumers and who have accumulated capital that feeds growth, innovation, and well-being.

Progressive politicians would have you believe that they have the wisdom, knowledge, and ability to govern us and radically change society for the good. All they ask is the power to do that. They assume that we in the private sector are fallible human beings, more prone to error than success. Yet somehow, we are fallible but they aren’t. You would have to be a college professor to believe that.

Here are some things to ponder. There has never been a regime with the powers as vast as those demanded by our Progressive politicians that has eliminated poverty and “inequality”. There has never been a regime with the powers as vast as those demanded by our Progressive politicians that has not degenerated into some form of economic malaise or totalitarianism.

It is important to see Progressive politicians like Bernie and Elizabeth for what they are: angry, envious people. Theirs is a story repeated often in history to the detriment of mankind: a messianic utopian vision that can only be accomplished by the coercive power of government. The more power they have, the less freedom and prosperity we have. If you don’t believe that then it would be hypocritical to not crush your smart phone.

Be seeing you

facebook_1573608373412.jpg

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is 2020 Going To Be the New 1860? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 21, 2020

Fortunately, this won’t end in war, but I do think that no matter who wins, decentralization will get a boost in 2021.

It really doesn’t matter who wins the 2020 election. Nearly fifty percent of the American population, if not more, loses. But not if we had real federalism.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/brion-mcclanahan/is-2020-going-to-be-the-new-1860/

By

BrionMcClanahan.com

If you watched the debate last night, I pity you. I watched it for you so you wouldn’t have to, but [spoiler alert] you didn’t miss anything by tuning out.

Regardless, I think some things became clear in the two hour snooze fest.

1. Joe Biden still looks like he is too old to be president. He stumbles, stutters, drools, and loses his train of thought in two seconds. Not a good showing for Uncle Joe.

2. Elena Klobuchar isn’t ready to be president, and probably never will be. She is in over her head and needs to quickly exit the race. Foreign policy is the most important role for the president, and Elena lost any momentum with her debate performance.

3. Mayor Mister Bean is attempting to appeal to centrist Democrats that do not exist while banking on LGBTQ support to increase his “woke” credentials. That, coupled with his Frederick Douglass initiative, is bad optics in that Party that is made up of various factions defined by Victim status.

4. Elizabeth Warren delivered the tomahawk chop to Bloomberg’s chances for the Democratic nomination, but she’s still too awkward and weird to win the nomination, even in a Party full of awkward and weird people. No one feels comfortable watching her. It’s like watching every boomer on social media trying to appeal to the kids with a meme about medical marijuana.

5. Comrade Sanders is the most authentic candidate in the the Party and appeals to its real base, the neo-Stalinists who comprise a good portion of the online Bernie Bros. He has never shied away from being a communist, and that means he has the inside shot at winning the nomination, unless the Party steals it from him again.

6. Mike Bloomberg isn’t going to get the nomination, but I think he will run as an independent candidate on a Never Trump/Never Sanders ticket, potentially with Hillary Clinton as his running mate. He is too many of the things the modern Victim Democrats can’t stand: racist, womanizer, billionaire, etc. That was clear as every candidate took shots at his character, money, and influence.

So what does this mean? 2020 looks a lot like 1860 or perhaps 1912.

Substitute Trump, Bloomberg, and Sanders for Douglas, Lincoln, and Bell or Taft, Wilson, and Debs and you have the 2020 presidential election.

The only real modern comparison could be 1992 with Perot, Clinton, and Bush, but Trump represents everything Perot advocated in 1992 while Bloomberg is the establishment. Sanders will be the socialist side show.

And Trump will win.

Fortunately, this won’t end in war, but I do think that no matter who wins, decentralization will get a boost in 2021.

Think locally, act locally. We are already seeing more Americans sign on to the idea of secession and nullification than at any point since 1860. And this time it will be peaceful. There are secession movements in Oregon and Virginia in addition to California, Illinois, New York, Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado, and Vermont. Self-determination is the American tradition.

It really doesn’t matter who wins the 2020 election. Nearly fifty percent of the American population, if not more, loses. But not if we had real federalism.

Every president before Lincoln knew it, as did nearly the entire founding generation.

The States, and perhaps even the counties, are the key to breaking apart the monstrosity that is Washington D.C.

I discuss the debates and the future of American politics in Episode 292 of The Brion McClanahan Show.

You can watch it here.

OR

You can listen to it here.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Erie Times E-Edition Article Democrats stumble out of the gate in presidential voting

Posted by M. C. on February 6, 2020

…and a carnival of unintended consequences.

This could be any government project.

George Will may be a warparty Buckley acolyte but he does understand government.

http://erietimes.pa.newsmemory.com/?publink=1a2a73160

George Will

The progressive party’s Iowa caucuses were a hilarious parody of progressive governance – ambitious, complex, subtle and a carnival of unintended consequences. The party that promises to fine-tune , from the production of wealth to the allocation of health care to the administration of education, produced a fittingly absurd climax to what surely was Iowa’s final strut as a national distraction.

Like a toddler trailing a security blanket across Iowa, Elizabeth Warren clung to identity politics with a fervor that suggested desperation and defied caricature.

Eventual autopsies of her campaign, and perhaps of the Democrats’ presidential hopes, should ponder this promise to Iowans: For the purpose of “restoring integrity and competence to government,” she will have “at least 50 percent of Cabinet positions filled by women and nonbinary people,” and a “young trans person” will vet her secretary of education candidates. In the Democrats’ ideological auction, Warren bested Pete Buttigieg who, in what counts in today’s Democratic Party as Solomonic centrism, promised only that half the members of his Cabinet will have two X chromosomes.

Four days before Iowa Democrats stumbled into futility, Bernie Sanders revealed to The New York Times the genesis of his socialism. Never mind the gulags, famines, Venezuelas and other wreckages, socialism is justified because the Dodgers decamped from Brooklyn to Los Angeles after the 1957 season when Sanders was 16. The Times says “perhaps no single event has proved more enduring in Mr. Sanders’ consciousness – more viscerally felt in his signature fury toward the 1 percent.” Well.

In 1955, the Dodgers, with six future Hall of Famers, won the World Series but had an average attendance of just 13,423, barely better than Major League Baseball‘s worst-drawing 2019 team (Miami, 10,016). In 1950, St. Louis, the western-most major-league city, had teams and Los Angeles had none. In Sanders’ cartoonish understanding of reality, his explanation of everything he finds objectionable – other people’s “greed” – explains the loss of what he still considers his eternal entitlement to the Dodgers being in Brooklyn.

Never mind that many of the Dodgers’ fans left Brooklyn, as did today’s senator from Vermont who, by the way, when playing a like-minded rabbi for a film said that he despises “free agency crap” – the unionized players’ hard-won right to negotiate terms of employment with teams of their choice.

Substituting indignation for information, Sanders’ baseball nostalgia is akin to his claim that the average worker “is not making a nickel more” than 45 years ago. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that from 1990 to 2016 the average household’s inflation- adjusted income after taxes and government transfers increased 46 percent, and 66 percent for households in the bottom quintile.

Fortunately, there is something comparatively serious in America’s political future. Super Tuesday, aka March 3, will allocate 1,357 delegates, 68 percent of the total needed to nominate. They will come mostly from (never mind American Samoa and Democrats abroad) 14 states that include five that the nominee will lose in November (Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Utah), three that he or she will win (California, Massachusetts, Vermont), five competitive ones (Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado) and one (Texas) that might be competitive if the nominee is neither Warren nor Sanders.

If a few early states must initiate the nomination process, they should be unlike Iowa, which has a population just 14 percent larger than in 1960, compared with North Carolina (130 percent larger), Georgia (169 percent), Texas (203 percent), Colorado (228 percent) and Florida (334 percent).

Michael Bloomberg, however, is giving a glimpse of another alternative – a national primary, or several regional primaries. His spending – $250 million on television and internet ads in two months; approximately what Anheuser-Busch has spent advertising beer in the same period – will demonstrate either the steeply declining utility of political dollars or the manageable challenge for ordinary candidates to raise large sums from small donors in a nation that spends $8 billion a year on potato chips.

Meanwhile, like startled pheasants flushed from an Iowa cornfield, the surviving Democratic aspirants have fluttered away. The silliest candidates have disappeared (remember Beto O’Rourke?

didn’t think so) and Iowa has at least clarified the Democrats’ clashing theories: Americans are angry and hankering for more turmoil (Warren, Sanders), or Americans are embarrassed and exhausted by today’s politics of obnoxious noise (everyone but Warren and Sanders).

Sanders and Warren find billionaires distasteful, and neither they nor their woker-than-thou supporters will graciously accept a rising Bloomberg, so Iowa was just a sample of the Democrats’ coming self-inflicted wounds.

President Donald Trump’s smiles usually look strained, like grimaces out of context, but perhaps not today.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Elizabeth Warren Says Transgender Child Must Approve Education Secretary

Posted by M. C. on January 31, 2020

“The first, it has to be someone who has taught in a public school.”

she would have that trans child interview the nominee for education secretary and look for the child’s approval:

Warren has been reaching out to LGBT voters by condemning Christian schools that hold and teach a biblical worldview of human sexuality and marriage.

Anti-Christian, anti-private education…two things that must be eliminated to insure control over the individual is established.

A child, no matter their inclinations, is likely better able to judge an education secretary than Warren.

Progressives like Warren are Franz Kafka’s Willem and Franz come to life.

A smart child would eliminate the ED. We managed fairly well until 1979 without it. Few would say we have improved since. Student competence comparisons with other countries, Asian in particular, don’t sing any praises.

Look here for the ED organization chart. A typical, expensive government cluster…

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/30/elizabeth-warren-says-transgender-child-must-approve-education-secretary/

by Dr. Susan Berry

Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren told attendees at a town hall in Cedar Rapids, Iowa Sunday that, if she is elected president, her education secretary will have to be approved by a transgender child.

When a supporter told Warren public schools need to teach more about LGBTQ history and sex education, the Massachusetts senator replied her education secretary would have to be interviewed by a transgender child.

“I have two qualifications that I have talked about over and over for my secretary of education,” Warren said. “The first, it has to be someone who has taught in a public school.”

Then, Warren said that since the question “came from a young trans person who asked about a welcoming community,” she would have that trans child interview the nominee for education secretary and look for the child’s approval:

I said it starts with the Secretary of Education who has a lot to do with where we spend our money, with what gets advanced in our public schools, with what the standards are. And I said I’m gonna have a Secretary of Education that this young trans person interviews on my behalf and only if this person believes that our secretary or secretary of education nominee is – is committed to creating a welcoming environment, a safe environment, and a full educational curriculum for everyone, will that person actually be advanced to be Secretary of Education.

Warren has been reaching out to LGBT voters by condemning Christian schools that hold and teach a biblical worldview of human sexuality and marriage.

As Breitbart News also reported in January, if elected, Warren has also vowed to fill at least half of her Cabinet with women and “non-binary” individuals – or those who claim they are neither male nor female.

However, as Gallup has observed, only 4.5 percent of U.S. adults identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) in 2017.

From the beginning of the Trump administration, Democrats have continually criticized current Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos for not having worked as a regular public school teacher. Most Democrat 2020 candidates have represented the views of the teachers’ unions whose leadership has condemned the administration’s support for school choice, viewing it as a threat to public schools.

Be seeing you

Education for All: Defending Public Education

The Education Department will do our thinking for US

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Elizabeth Warren proposes criminal penalties for spreading voting disinformation online

Posted by M. C. on January 30, 2020

How long before this requirement filters down to the level of the deplorables?

As with all do-gooder plans touted as benefiting you when they are really intended to control you:

Who decides what is dis-information? Elizabeth Warren?

Who decides whom must prove themselves innocent? Hillary Drivewiper?

Progressives like Warren and Sanders are dangerous.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/29/warren-proposes-criminal-penalties-for-spreading-disinformation-online.html

Key Points
  • Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday released a plan to fight disinformation to hold tech companies accountable for their actions in light of the 2016 election.
  • Warren proposed to combat disinformation by holding big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google responsible for their actions….

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Elizabeth Warren Has a Bad Plan for Everything – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 1, 2020

Rest assured someone has to pay for all this “Free Stuff”.

Even the Leftist UK party figured this out when they trounced Corbyn.

Independents and moderates will be highly unlikely to support Marxist nutcases.

Count the times you read “tax”.

As George Will is fond of saying-Corporations are tax collectors, not tax payers. Taxes like most government mandates (minimum wage) are costs of business that get passed on.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/mike-mish-shedlock/elizabeth-warren-has-a-bad-plan-for-everything/

By

Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis

Elizabeth Warren wants to steer the US to the Left, radical Left.

If you are looking for ideas, Elizabeth Warren has a ton of them. All of them are bad. Please consider Elizabeth Warren’s Plan.

  1. Wealth tax: Tax net worth over $50 million at 2% a year, and 6% above $1 billion. To prevent the rich from yachting off, add a 40% “exit tax” on assets over $50 million upon renouncing U.S. citizenship. Estimated revenue: $3.75 trillion over a decade from 75,000 households. Most economists, including many Democrats, call that number a fantasy. Courts might also find the tax unconstitutional.
  2. Medicare for All tax: Mandate government coverage for everyone, including for illegal immigrants, with no copays or deductibles. Phase out the private plans of 170 million Americans. She says this would cost $20.5 trillion over a decade, which most economists say is $10 trillion short of reality. Keep the growth of health spending below 4% a year with tools like “population-based budgets” and “automatic rate reductions.” Pay doctors at “Medicare rates” and hospitals at 110% of that. Charge companies with at least 50 workers an “Employer Medicare Contribution,” equal to 98% of their recent outlays on health care, while adjusting for inflation and changes in staff size. These varying fees “would be gradually shifted to converge at the average health care cost-per-employee nationally.”
  3. Global corporate tax: Raise the top business rate to 35%. Apply this as a world-wide minimum on overseas earnings by U.S. companies. Businesses would “pay the difference between the minimum tax and the rate in the countries where they book their profits.” Apply a similar minimum tax to foreign companies, prorated by the share of their sales made in the U.S. Estimated revenue: $1.65 trillion over a decade.
  4. Corporate surtax: Tax profit over $100 million at a new 7% rate, without exemptions. This would go atop the regular corporate rate. Estimated revenue: $1 trillion over a decade from 1,200 public companies.
  5. Slower expensing: “Our current tax system lets companies deduct the cost of certain investments they make in assets faster than those assets actually lose value.” Closing this “loophole,” she says, would raise $1.25 trillion over a decade.
  6. Higher capital gains taxes: Tax the investment gains of the wealthiest 1% as ordinary income, meaning rates near 40% instead of today’s 23.8%. Apply the tax annually on gains via a “mark to market” system, even if the asset hasn’t been sold. Estimated revenue: $2 trillion over a decade.
  7. Finance taxes: Tax the sale of bonds, stocks and so forth at 0.1%. Estimated revenue: $800 billion over a decade. Charge big banks a systemic risk fee, raising $100 billion more.
  8. Individual tax increases: There’s no detailed proposal, but Ms. Warren’s clean-energy plan is “paid for by reversing Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and giant corporations.” She’s budgeted $1 trillion.
  9. Social Security: Increase benefits by $2,400 a year across the board. Raise them further “for lower-income families, women, people with disabilities, public-sector workers, and people of color” by changing “outdated” rules that Ms. Warren says disadvantage them.
  10. Lobbying tax: Tax “excessive lobbying” over $500,000 a year at rates up to 75%. Ms. Warren says this would have raised $10 billion over the past decade, although it probably runs headlong into the First Amendment’s right to petition the government. Use the revenue for “a surge of resources to Congress and federal agencies.”
  11. Green New Deal: Spend $3 trillion, including $1.5 trillion on industrial mobilization, $400 billion on research, and $100 billion on a Marshall Plan. By 2030 hit 100% carbon-neutral power and 100% zero-emission new cars. Retrofit “4% of houses and buildings every year.” For “environmental justice,” put a third of the funds into “the most vulnerable communities.”
  12. An end to fossil fuels: Ban fracking. Halt new drilling leases on federal land. “Prohibit future fossil fuel exports.” Kill the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. “Subject each new infrastructure project to a climate test.” Give “workers transitioning into new industries” a “guaranteed wage and benefit parity” and “promised pensions and early retirement benefits.”
  13. K-12 education: Add $450 billion to Title I, $200 billion for students with disabilities, $100 billion for “excellence grants,” and $50 billion for school upgrades. “End federal funding for the expansion of charter schools.”
  14. A “right” to child care: Build a federal network of local providers, subject to national standards. Give free care to the “millions of children” whose households are under 200% of poverty, or $51,500 for a family of four. For everyone else, cap child-care spending at 7% of income. Estimated cost: $700 billion.
  15. Free college: “Give every American the opportunity to attend a two-year or four-year public college without paying a dime in tuition or fees.” Add $100 billion to Pell Grants and $50 billion for historically black colleges, tribal schools and more. Estimated cost: $610 billion.
  16. Student-debt forgiveness: Write off $50,000 for households with incomes under $100,000. This would phase out as income rises toward $250,000. Estimated cost: $640 billion.
  17. Housing: Spend $500 billion “to build, preserve, and rehab” millions of affordable-housing units. Condition such funding “on repealing state laws that prohibit local rent control.” Paid for by lowering the death-tax exemption to $7 million from $22 million per couple. At the same time, “raise the tax rates above that threshold.”
  18. Unions: Overturn “so-called ‘right to work’ laws” in 27 states. Guarantee public employees an ability to “bargain collectively in every state.” Amend labor law to aid “sectoral bargaining.” Give the National Labor Relations Board “much stronger” powers, such as “to impose compensatory and punitive damages.”
  19. Corporate governance: Make companies with revenue over $1 billion obtain a new federal charter—separate from the current state charter system—that requires them to “consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders.” Give workers 40% of board seats, and put CEOs under “a new criminal negligence standard.”
  20. Industrial policy: Manage the dollar’s value “more actively” to “promote exports and domestic manufacturing.” Create a Department of Economic Development, and have it write a National Jobs Strategy. Expand the Export-Import Bank. Impose a “border carbon adjustment” fee—that is, new tariffs—on imports from countries that don’t align with U.S. climate policies.
  21. Antitrust: Break up AmazonFacebook and Google. “Unwind” their mergers with Whole Foods, Instagram, DoubleClick and more. Regulate as a “platform utility” any online marketplace with global revenue of $25 billion. Reverse agriculture consolidation, “including the recent Bayer-Monsanto merger,” and create a “supply management program” to “guarantee farmers a price at their cost of production.”
  22. Banking: Pass “a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act that breaks up the big banks.” Let the U.S. Postal Service “partner with local community banks” to provide “basic banking services like checking and savings accounts.”
  23. Gun control: Create a “federal licensing system for the purchase of any type of firearm or ammunition.” Raise taxes to 30% on guns and 50% on ammo. Ban sales of “assault weapons,” and make current owners “register them under the National Firearms Act.” Pass a law to let shooting victims “hold the manufacturer of the weapon that harmed them strictly liable.”
  24. Centralized elections: Use federal money to “replace every voting machine in the country.” For federal elections, mandate early voting and same-day registration. If state elections follow the same rules, they can be “fully funded by the federal government,” with “a bonus for achieving high voter turnout.” Estimated cost: $20 billion, paid by “closing loopholes” in the death tax.
  25. Miscellaneous: Spend $100 billion “to end the opioid crisis,” $85 billion “to massively expand broadband access,” $25 billion on “health professional shortage areas,” and $7 billion “to close the gap in startup capital for entrepreneurs of color.” Double the foreign service and the Peace Corps.

Warren’s Marxist Manifesto Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hard Choices Ahead

Posted by M. C. on December 28, 2019

AOC

Occasional-Cortex

Faux

False Tongue

Bernie

Democratic Socialist – Short for Communist

che-guevara_00427261

Socialist hero that killed a lot of people – But wearing the tee shirt is cool.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Understanding Elizabeth Warren’s “Radical” Wealth Tax | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on December 3, 2019

However, suppose the individual invests the wealth in fairly safe bonds that yield a return of 3%. At the end of the period, the individual will have the original $1,000 plus the $30 in gross interest income, for a new level of wealth of $1,030. If that wealth is then taxed at 3%, the individual owes the IRS ($1,030 x 3%) =  $31 (with rounding). Yikes! The income generated by that wealth was only $30 during the period, and so if the individual had the same liability from a income tax (applied to interest), then the “equivalent” tax rate would be 103%! 

Wealth is not all cash. It is buildings, machinery, stock (manufactured products)…things that get others employed. You are more likely to find a job with a “rich” person than one taxed to financial death.

https://mises.org/wire/understanding-elizabeth-warrens-radical-wealth-tax?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=938d32f1ce-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-938d32f1ce-228343965

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has had a long-standing call for a 2% wealth tax on any individuals with a net worth exceeding $50 million, and a 3% tax on wealth exceeding $1 billion. Yet when pressed on how to pay for her “Medicare for All” plan, Warren upped the ante to a 6% wealth tax for those fortunes exceeding $1 billion. (As I noted at the time of the announcement: If Warren doubles her wealth tax during the campaign, imagine how fast it will rise if she’s actually elected.)

Naturally, many conservative and libertarian analysts recoiled from such an economically destructive proposal. One of the ways critics used to illustrate the severity of Warren’s idea was to translate a wealth tax into an “equivalent” income tax on dividends, interest, and capital gains. But other economists pointed out problems with that line of attack, because after all, wealth and income are different things, and so taxes on them affect behavior differently. Wealth taxes are inefficient, no doubt about it, but not because “it’s the same thing as a huge income tax.” In the present piece I’ll try to referee the disputes and present the reader with an intuitive understanding of the issues involved.

How Wealth Taxes Can Correspond to Very High Income Taxes

In order to show that Warren’s seemingly modest 6% wealth tax was in fact quite radical, Richard Rubin at the Wall Street Journal warned that “Warren has unveiled sweeping tax proposals that would push federal tax rates on some billionaires and multimillionaires above 100%.” Likewise, Columbia University economist Wojciech Kopczuk—while commenting on the more academic proposal coming from economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanual Saez—argued that, “If you consider a safe rate of return of, say, 3%, a 3% wealth tax is a 103% tax on the corresponding capital income and a 6% tax rate is a 206% tax.”

Before proceeding, let’s illustrate Kopczuk’s argument with a numerical example. (Note that in the rest of this article, in my examples I’m going to use small amounts of wealth, such as $1,000, to keep the math simple. Warren’s actual proposals of course only apply to wealth exceeding $50 million and $1 billion—at least so far!)

Now then, suppose someone starts with $1,000 in wealth. If he consumes it, then he faces no wealth tax nor income tax. (Kopczuk adopts the convention that any wealth taxes are assessed on wealth at the end of the period, while income taxes are based on income generated during the period.)

However, suppose the individual invests the wealth in fairly safe bonds that yield a return of 3%. At the end of the period, the individual will have the original $1,000 plus the $30 in gross interest income, for a new level of wealth of $1,030. If that wealth is then taxed at 3%, the individual owes the IRS ($1,030 x 3%) =  $31 (with rounding). Yikes! The income generated by that wealth was only $30 during the period, and so if the individual had the same liability from a income tax (applied to interest), then the “equivalent” tax rate would be 103%!

In General, a Wealth Tax Is Not Equivalent to an Income Tax

Although such calculations may be useful to wake up the average American to just how economically destructive even a “low” wealth tax may be, strictly speaking it is incorrect to argue that a wealth tax of x% is “equivalent to” or “the same thing as” a tax on capital income of y%. Over at EconLog, economists Scott Sumner and David R. Henderson both laid out some of the problems.

For our purposes, let me focus on Henderson’s commentary, where he showed the problem with Kopczuk’s analysis. Note, however, that in his actual example, Henderson ran the numbers for a 2% wealth tax. I’m going to change the calculations to make his same point, but using a 3% wealth tax, because I think that’s easier for the reader and also to be consistent with my commentary above:

The way to see what the marginal tax rate on capital income is[,] is to think on the margin: change the income from capital and see how much extra tax is paid.

So, for example, start with $1,000 at the start of the year that earns what Kopczuk calls the riskless rate of return, 3%. With a wealth tax, $1,030 at year’s end is taxed at [3%], leaving the owner with [97%] of $1,030, which is [$999.10].

Now raise the rate of return to 4%. With a wealth tax, $1,040 is taxed at [3%], leaving the owner with [97%] of $1,040, which is [$1,008.80].

How much more did the owner of capital net from the investment at 4% rather than at 3%? [$1,008.80] minus [$999.10], which is [$9.70]. In other words, for an extra income from capital of $10, the owner kept [$9.70]. The wealth tax amounted to a [3%] tax on the income from capital. [David R. Henderson, bold added, with bracketed numbers reflecting Murphy’s tweaking of the size of the wealth tax.]

As Henderson’s example shows, in general you can’t take a given wealth tax and then translate it into the “equivalent” income tax. In his example, if an investor has the choice between Investment A that is relatively safe and carries a return of 3%, and Investment B that is riskier but promises the higher expected return of 4%, then the wealth tax of 3% provides different incentives than a tax on capital income of 103%.

Specifically, under a 3% wealth tax, the investor who takes on the extra risk by switching to Investment B—trying to boost his gross rate of return from 3% to 4%, and hence his gross income on the investment from $30 to $40—will be able to keep 97% of that extra $10 in expected return on the investment.

In utter contrast, if the investor faces not a wealth tax, but instead a tax on capital income of 103%, then even if the riskier investment pays off as expected, the investor ends up worse off! Specifically, if he goes with Investment A our investor ends up with $1,030 gross on which he must pay ($30 x 103%) = $30.90 in income tax, leaving him with $999.10 after the dust settles. But if he goes with the riskier Investment B and even if it pays off as he’d hoped, the investor ends up with $1,040 gross on which he must pay ($40 x 103%) = $41.20 in income tax, leaving him with $998.80 when the dust settles.

In summary, David R. Henderson has come up with a specific example to show why it’s wrong to argue that a wealth tax of 3% is “equivalent to” a capital income tax of 103%. If we assume an investor has the option of putting his wealth into a riskier investment with a higher rate of return, then the 3% wealth tax only distorts the decision by 3% (loosely speaking). If the risker investment pays out, then the investor’s upside is only clipped by the modest 3% tax on the extra wealth he now holds. In contrast, under a 103% income tax, then it would be insane for the individual to even consider the riskier asset. Perversely, the more it pays out, the worse off the investor ends up, because the government assesses a tax that is proportional to, but bigger than, any gains.

At this point, we see that wealth and income taxes can have very different effects on investor behavior. Generally speaking, if we are considering long-term deployments of financial capital, and comparing it to a no-tax baseline, a modest wealth tax will lead investors to seek riskier assets earning higher (expected) rates of return, while a very high capital income tax will lead investors to tread water, putting their wealth into safe assets that earn very low rates of return. Both types of taxes distort financial decisions, but they do so in different ways. They aren’t “equivalent” in general.

Still Not the Full Story

My apologies dear reader, but we’re not done yet: Henderson’s analysis isn’t the full story, either. Strictly speaking, what he showed is that under a wealth tax of 3%, an investor who consumes all of his wealth at the end of the period only faces a marginal income tax rate of 3%. Yet in practice, most investors probably aren’t planning on consuming everything in one fell swoop, and so Henderson has led readers to understate the economic impact of a wealth tax.

Recall the example: An investor who switches his $1,000 in capital from an asset yielding 3% to one that yields 4% will see his gross income jump from $30 to $40. Henderson reasoned that under a wealth tax of 3%, the investor got to retain $9.70 of the extra $10 in gross income, and concluded that the marginal income tax rate was therefore only 3%.  (A reminder to avoid confusion: In order to keep the analysis comparable to the quotation from Kopczuk, I amended Henderson’s numbers to deal with a 3% wealth tax rather than a 2% version.)

Yet to repeat, this is only true if the investor consumes that $9.70. If instead the investor holds it another period, then it will trigger a second tax liability under the wealth tax, this time of ($9.70 x 3%) = 29 cents. And then if the investor carries the balance forward yet again, at the end of the third year he must pay another ($9.41 x 3%) = 28 cents in wealth tax. In contrast, under an income tax regime, if the investor just sits on his after-tax wealth after he earns it the first year, rather than deploying it to earn new income, then he owes no more additional tax on it.

In short, if our hypothetical investor had long-term plans for his wealth, then Henderson underestimated the burden of the wealth tax. In the limit, if the investor earned a one-shot return of $10 and then put it somewhere earning no return, it would asymptotically approach $0 over the years, as the government kept nibbling 3% annually at it. (For example, after 20 years of getting hit with the wealth tax, the original $10 in extra interest income earned that first year would have been whittled down to about $5.44.)

Let’s do one last example to illustrate the subtleties involved. Suppose our investor earned that extra $10 during this year (by moving his $1,000 into an asset that yielded 4% rather than 3%), and then wants to put the $10 under his mattress, where he intends to keep it for 50 years. How then would this extra $10 he earned this year, affect his long-term tax liability? Well, at the end of the first year he owes 30 cents. At the end of the second year he owes 29 cents on the remainder, and at the end of (say) the 25th year he owes 14 cents. However, when computing the burden from today’s perspective, those future tax payments need to be discounted. Since Kopczuk and Henderson both assumed a “safe” return of 3%, we can use that for a discount rate. (For example, the 14-cent wealth tax liability due in 25 years only has a present discounted value to our individual of 7 cents.)

Using this approach, the total wealth tax (in present-dollar terms) that the incremental $10 in wealth will cause our investor, over a 50-year time horizon, is some $4.89. In that sense, then, when our investor is considering whether to rearrange his portfolio in order to earn an extra $10, he faces a “marginal income tax rate” of about 49%.

Another way of showing the issue is to assume our investor wants to set aside a portion of his initial $10 in extra wealth, in order to cover all of the future wealth tax payments over the 50-year horizon. If he puts his earmarked “sinking tax fund” wealth into the relatively safe asset yielding 3%, then the investor must allocate $6.01 of his initial $10, just to cover the future wealth tax payments. Using this approach, the investor could understandably conclude that of his $10 in gross earnings—since he could only put $3.99 under the mattress “free and clear” for use in 50 years—he effectively paid the equivalent of a 60.1% marginal income tax rate.

Conclusion

Putting aside the moral problems with taxation—it’s theft, as a popular libertarian slogan reminds us—Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth taxes will have devastating consequences on capital formation, and will encourage investors to hold riskier assets than they otherwise would have. In order to illustrate the magnitudes involved, some analysts translated Warren’s proposals into “equivalent” income tax rates.

However, wealth and income are different concepts, and in general taxes on wealth and income will have different effects. For those investors with a short planning horizon, a modest wealth tax has a relatively modest impact on the decision to save for the future. However, for those with longer time horizons, even a seemingly modest wealth tax has an economic impact akin to a large income tax.

 

Be seeing you

Wealth tax - definition and meaning - Market Business News

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Does Hillary Clinton Want Fact-Checking… or Censorship?

Posted by M. C. on November 17, 2019

Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if various Democrat politicians came under attack by opponent ads. Let’s say Hillary Clinton runs for president again. Would she demand the media ban an ad that begins, “Hillary Clinton says she is a champion of women’s rights. Then why does she protect powerful men suspected of rape?”

Al Sharpton was one promoter of the infamous Tawana Brawley hoax. His history of accuracy is about as good as Alex Jones’, who initially claimed that the Sandy Hook school massacre was a hoax. I don’t expect that Zuckerberg will sit down with Alex Jones to hear his demands soon.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/does-hillary-clinton-want-fact-checking-or-censorship

 

Does Hillary Clinton Want Fact-Checking… or Censorship?

Recently Hillary Clinton blasted Facebook, Tweeting:

Facebook’s decision to allow false information in political advertisements is appalling.

Voters are being confronted by millions of pieces of misinformation.

A world where up is down and down is up is a world where democracy can’t thrive.

Other Democrats joined in. Virginia Senator Mark Warner said: “Facebook’s new ads policy allows politicians to run demonstrably false advertising on its platform. I don’t think that’s right.”

Both Clinton and Warner were referring to Facebook’s announced policy of exempting political ads from fact-checking. But in a world where Snopes fact checks the satirical Babylon Bee, we should all be skeptical of the fact-checking they have in mind.

It’s hard to imagine good intentions motivate these politicians. In any case, good intentions are not enough. Media fact-checking can easily be biased and result in censorship of views critical to various candidates.

Imagine, for a moment, what might happen if various Democrat politicians came under attack by opponent ads. Let’s say Hillary Clinton runs for president again. Would she demand the media ban an ad that begins, “Hillary Clinton says she is a champion of women’s rights. Then why does she protect powerful men suspected of rape?”

If Elizabeth Warren gets the Democratic nomination, would she ask for a ban on a hard-hitting ad that says something like:

Elizabeth Warren is a serial liar. Now she is lying again when she says the middle class won’t pay for her vast new spending programs. Economist Antony Davies says: ‘The 550 US billionaires together are worth $2.5 trillion. If we confiscated 100% of their wealth, we’d raise enough to run the federal government for less than 8 months. Perhaps our problem isn’t how much billionaires have but how much politicians spend.’ Senator Warren, your facts are wrong again.

If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, he’d be outraged by an ad questioning why Sanders cozies up to communist dictators or one questioning his wife’s financial dealings.

How about a potential ad targeting Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar? “Minnesota has a proud history of tolerance. There is no room for an anti-Semitic hate monger in Congress.” Will a future fact-checker reject this ad because Omar and her supporters claim critics are “twisting her words”?

But let’s go beyond politicians. What about ads for public policies?

Should ads that argue for a ban on exposing young children to bewildering information on gender dysphoria be banned as “hateful”? Just over ten years ago, confusion over sexual identity was called gender identity disorder; no professional would have recommended that a seven-year-old boy begin transitioning to a girl at the urging of a parent.

Or imagine the outrage over a campaign ad calling for an overhaul of welfare programs saying the worst poverty “is not material poverty but poverty of soul.” Fact-checkers might say the ad blames innocent victims of poverty and is therefore false.

Since the official verdict is that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide, would a fact-checker reject an ad demanding an investigation into the coverup of his possible murder?

Recently Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg held a two hour “no-holds-barred” meeting with Al Sharpton and other “civil rights activists.” The meeting took place at Zuckerberg’s home; discussions centered on Sharpton’s objections to Facebook’s “decision not to fact-check ads and other content from politicians.”

Al Sharpton was one promoter of the infamous Tawana Brawley hoax. His history of accuracy is about as good as Alex Jones’, who initially claimed that the Sandy Hook school massacre was a hoax. I don’t expect that Zuckerberg will sit down with Alex Jones to hear his demands soon.

Political commentary and political ads have long included elements short on facts. Vigorous campaigns are a strength of our political system, not a weakness. Unlike other countries where “slandering” the leader can lead to imprisonment or death, politicians in America are not above criticism.

In Nazi Germany, it was an official fact that Jews were Untermensch, subhuman mongrels. In pre-Civil War America, it was a fact that slaveowners could treat blacks as property. Freedom of speech allows individuals to challenge “facts.”

Collectivists, including democratic socialists, always aim to suppress speech. Because their plans never stand up to reality, they must stifle the resulting dissent. Is that why Hillary Clinton and others want to suppress alternative views?

“Whether you can observe a thing depends upon the theory which you use,” observed Einstein. Often what is being disputed in politics are not facts but interpretations of events. If you have the right politics, there are very few things the media will not overlook.

Suppression of speech – not “false information” – threatens our Republic

Be seeing you

bubba

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »