New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Murphy rests his hand on a box of petitions as he answers a question before delivering the petitions to meet Monday’s deadline for candidates to file petitions to run, Monday, April 3, 2017, in Trenton, N.J. (Photo: AP)
A new Emerson College Poll finds Democrat Phil Murphy leads Republican Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno by 16 points — 47% to 31 — up from an 11-point lead in early October. The full press release can be viewed here.
Mr. Murphy’s favorability rating – at 36% favorable and 30% unfavorable –is better than Lt. Gov. Guadagno’s at 27%/42%. However, while both are maintaining high “neutral/no opinion” numbers — 32% and 26%, respectively — one of them is heading in the wrong direction.
Emerson College Polling Director Professor Spencer Kimball told People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) the shift in favorability “is a strong indicator that the two campaigns are moving in different directions” and could result in a “blowout” in November.
The Republican candidate pounced on Mr. Murphy’s support for making the state a sanctuary city, but Garden State voters oppose 43% to 39%. But the controversial ads run by the campaign of Lt. Gov. Guadagno may have backfired. Forty-five (45%) of those who have seen or heard about it say it made them less likely to vote for her juxtaposed to only 30% who say it made them more likely to support.
“It seems the issue of sanctuary cities is controversial and might be able to increase the Republican turnout,” Professor Kimball said. “But when asked specifically about the use of the issue in the campaign the undecided voters are not really being swayed.”
Meanwhile, the corruption trial surrounding Democratic Senator Bob Menendez may not be having an impact on the gubernatorial election, but they have taken a serious toll on the incumbent, himself. Only 7% say they trust him, 15% say it will impact their vote and a plurality (38%) expect him to be convicted.
Methodology
The New Jersey Emerson College poll was conducted October 26th -28th, 2017 under the Supervision of Professor Spencer Kimball. The sample consisted of only very likely registered voters, n=540, with a margin of error (MOE) of +/-4.2 percentage points. The New Jersey data was weighted by gender, age, party affiliation, 2016 vote, and mode of data collection. It is important to remember that subsets based on gender, age, party affiliation, and education carry with them higher margins of error, as the sample size is reduced. Data was collected using both an Interactive VoiceResponse (IVR) system of landlines only and an online panel provided by Opinion Access.
People count money at Macy’s Herald Square store during the early opening of the Black Friday sales in the Manhattan borough of New York, November 26, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) report on Personal Income and Outlays showed wages and salaries rose solidly in September, meeting the median forecast. Personal income increased by $66.9 billion, or 0.4%, and disposable personal income (DPI) increased by $53.0 billion, also by 0.4%.
Consumer spending jumped 1.0% as a 2.1% surge in durable goods was fueled by demand for vehicles following Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.
The one negative analysts are lamenting in the report is the lack of inflation pressure. The personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased by $136.0 billion, or 1.0%. The $76.0 billion increase in the so-called real PCE was fueled by an increase of $59.1 billion in spending for goods and a $21.6 billion increase in spending for services.
Personal saving was $441.9 billion and the personal saving rate, personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income, was 3.1%.
Paul Manafort, senior advisor to Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump, exits following a meeting of Donald Trump’s national finance team at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York City, U.S., June 9, 2016.
Paul Manafort and his former business associate and protégé Rick Gates were told to surrender to federal authorities Monday morning, making them the first to be charged by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates were processed separately and will go before a judge Monday afternoon.
The nature of the charges wasn’t immediately clear. However, as Peoples’s Pundit Daily (PPD) previously reported, prosecutors for Special Counsel Mueller probed witnesses about the role The Podesta Group played in advancing Russian interests at the State Department under Hillary Clinton when working for Mr. Manafort.
(UPDATE: The indictment includes 12 counts of conspiracy to and money laundering in connection to lobbying as unregistered agents on behalf of Russian interests. View indictment below or manafort-gates_indictment_filed_and_redacted.)
Sources with knowledge of the interviews told PPD witnesses, one a former employee at The Podesta Group, were peppered with questions surrounding their knowledge of the relationship between Tony Podesta and Mr. Manafort, which began at least in 2011.
Mr. Podesta is the brother of former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, who also came under fire for failing to disclose his ties to the Russian-funded Joule Unlimited before he went to work in the Obama Administration. The company gave him 75,000 shares, which was only discovered after the 2016 election.
The Democratic lobbying firm worked on a public relations campaign for the non-profit European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU), which aimed to promote the image of the then-Russian satellite regime. The campaign was organized by Mr. Manafort and raises the question of whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Mr. Gates appears in the paper trail linking him to companies that Mr. Manafort’s firm set up in Cyprus to receive payments from politicians and business figures in Eastern Europe, according to documents obtained by The New York Times. While Mr. Manafort once ran President Donald Trump’s campaign during a heated delegate fight for the Republican nomination, the Special Counsel investigation focused on activities unrelated and prior to that role.
Mr. Manafort had been under investigation for violations of federal tax law, money laundering and whether he appropriately disclosed his foreign lobbying.
Democrats have been holding out hope Mr. Mueller’s investigation politically or legally damages President Trump, and have defended the former FBI director against growing calls for him to resign due to conflicts of interest. But with his focus turning to Mr. Manafort’s pre-Trump campaign activities and The Podesta Group, they may have made a grave miscalculation.
From left to right: Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign chairman; Robert Mueller, the former FBI director and special counsel; and Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and head of the Podesta Group. (Photos: AP)
Prosecutors for Special Counsel Robert Mueller probed witnesses about the role The Podesta Group played in advancing Russian interests at the State Department under Hillary Clinton. The revelations come as Mr. Mueller and his team reportedly secured their first indictment, with arrests to come as early as Monday.
Sources with knowledge of the interviews told People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) witnesses, one a former employee at The Podesta Group, were peppered with questions surrounding their knowledge of the relationship between Tony Podesta and Paul Manafort, which began at least in 2011.
Tony Podesta is the brother of former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, who also came under fire for failing to disclose his ties to the Russian-funded Joule Unlimited before he went to work in the Obama Administration. The company gave him 75,000 shares, which were only scrutinized after the 2016 election.
According to sources, the line of questioning clearly indicated the Special Counsel was focused on two potential criminal activities.
First, the Democratic lobbying firm worked on a public relations campaign for the non-profit European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU), which aimed to promote the image of the then-Russian satellite regime. The campaign was organized by Mr. Manafort and raises the question of whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Paul Manafort, senior advisor to Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump, exits following a meeting of Donald Trump’s national finance team at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York City, U.S., June 9, 2016.
The law requires those who lobby on behalf of foreign agents to file disclosures with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Neither Mr. Manafort nor The Podesta Group appeared to have been in compliance with FARA. By filing a retroactive FARA disclosure this April, the liberal firm admitted to the lobbying activities.
Second, the access to Clinton’s State Department The Podesta Group provided to Mr. Manafort acting on behalf of the Russians, overlaps with the controversial Uranium One deal.
In 2011, the Obama Administration approved a deal allowing Tenex, a subsidiary of the Russian state-owned nuclear giant Rosatom, to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Prior to the decision, Tenex was only allowed to sell U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the Megatons to Megawatts Program, which began in 1993 and expired in December 2013.
The deal advanced Russia’s effort to corner the world uranium market and gave Moscow control of more than 20% of America’s uranium supply. In January 2013, just one year before the Megatons to Megawatts Program ended, Rosatom purchased Uranium One through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding for $1.3 billion.
Sources indicate Mr. Mueller’s team discovered at least one meeting between Mr. Podesta and members of the Clinton Foundation, which is believed to have been held for the advancement of the nuclear deal. All of the board members from Rosatom donated to the Clinton Foundation, bringing estimates upwards of $100 million.
Tony Podesta, then-the Pennsylvania manager for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, speaks to Associated Press reporters in Philadelphia, Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2004. (Photo: AP)
Worth noting, a Russian bank pushing for Uranium One paid former President Bill Clinton roughly $500,000 for a speaking fee in 2010. In 2009, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) uncovered a massive bribery, corruption and racketeering scheme before the Obama Administration approved the nuclear deal as the result of an investigation that began when Mr. Mueller was still the director.
Last Wednesday, DOJ cleared an FBI confidential informant to testify before Congress on Uranium One.
His friendship with fired FBI director James Comey and, now, the new revelations about his role in overseeing the investigation into Uranium One has prompted new calls for Mr. Mueller to resign.
The law and DOJ policy governing special counsels states no person shall “participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome.”
The Uranium One deal is currently under investigation by the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and resignation calls in the Republican-controlled House are growing.
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller arrives at an installation ceremony at FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Monday, Oct. 28, 2013. (Photo: AP)
“The federal code could not be clearer – Mueller is compromised by his apparent conflict of interest in being close with James Comey,” Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., who first called for Mr. Mueller to step down over the summer, said in a statement. “The appearance of a conflict is enough to put Mueller in violation of the code. … All of the revelations in recent weeks make the case stronger.”
Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is calling for a new Special Counsel to investigate the controversial Obama-Clinton era nuclear deal. While his committee also launched an investigation, only the powers granted to a federal prosecutor can get to the bottom of what appears to be a “pay-for-play” quid pro quo.
Democrats, with the hope Mr. Mueller’s investigation politically or legally damages President Donald Trump, have defended the former FBI director. But with his focus turning to The Podesta Group and the Clinton State Department, they may have made a grave miscalculation.
President John F. Kennedy, left, with his wife and first lady Jackie Kennedy, right, in Dallas, Texas before his assassination.
President Donald Trump said Friday he “will be releasing ALL JFK files other than the names and addresses of anyone mentioned person who is still living.” The President of the United States sent out a tweet Friday night with his decision, which he said came “after strict consultation” with White House Chief of Staff General John Kelly.
Photo and statement on the #JFKFiles tweeted by President Donald J. Trump on October 27, 2017.
The documents are from the probes conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In July, the National Archives and Records Administration (NAA) released over 400 previously unreleased documents on the assassination.
The CIA was seeking to block the declassification and release of the few remaining documents on the Kennedy assassination for another half-generation. It’s unclear what information they contain. A 1992 law requires that the National Archives to preserve the approximately 5 million pages of records surrounding the investigation.
Earlier in the week, a senior White House official told People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) the Trump Administration would release some 2,800 classified documents. However, President Trump was going to hold back certain sensitive documents for 180 days due to concerns from some intelligence agencies.
The U.S. flag is displayed at Tesoro’s Los Angeles oil refinery in Los Angeles, California. (Photo: Reuters)
The Baker Hughes North American Rig Count is down 15 to 1,100 for the week ending October 27, as both the U.S. and Canada count declined yet again. Overall, the North American Rig Count is still up 390 on the year, far more than the 710 rigs in commission at this time last year.
The U.S. rig count was down 4 rigs to 909 and up 352 rigs from the 557 last year. The Canadian count was down 11 rigs to 191 and up from the 153 rigs from last year.
For the U.S., rigs classified as drilling for oil was up 1 to 737, while rigs classified as gas are down 5 at 172. For Canada, oil rigs were down 11 to 96 and gas rigs are down 1 to 94.
Worth noting, the rig count in states impacted by hurricanes were mixed, contrary to forecasts. Texas rigs were up 5 to 441 and Louisiana rigs were down 3 at 64. The Gulf of Mexico, which is a subset of the U.S. in the North American Rig Count, was flat at 20 for the second straight week.
Megyn Kelly, a former and once-popular Fox News anchor, who moved to NBC and now hosts a failing show.
Megyn Kelly is reportedly dragging down NBC’s morning show ratings and, judging by a new poll, it’s probably because American don’t like her. The once-popular Fox News anchor made it her professional mission to oppose Donald Trump.
Well, she lost that fight.
A new Rasmussen Reports national survey finds that just 28% of Americans have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of Ms. Kelly, including only six percent (6%) with a very favorable view. Forty-five percent (45%) have an unfavorable opinion of the “Megyn Kelly Today” show host, including 19% with a very unfavorable view.
Ms. Kelly’s career and image began to tank the night she opened up the first Republican presidential debate in August 2015. She peppered then-candidate Trump about his comments regarding Rosie O’Donnell, whom he once called a pig. Her former show, “The Kelly File,” turned vehemently anti-Trump and pushed more Establishment Republican candidates.
It also pushed the network’s ratings and image way down.
As People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) previously reported, Fox News’ efforts to use Ms. Kelly and others to first run interference for Jeb Bush and later Marco Rubio resulted in their own image taking a hit among viewers. Their image fell to a 3-year low and the most dramatic decline was among Republican men.
They’ve since tried to rescue themselves by giving populist conservatives like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham bigger platforms.
Now, sources at NBC say Ms. Kelly is dragging down their entire morning lineup.
“Not only are ratings plummeting since Megyn Kelly joined the ‘Today’ franchise, but the numbers show Kelly’s lead-in has also affected Kathie Lee [Gifford] and Hoda Kotb’s show, which follows straight afterwards,” a source told Page Six at the New York Post. “Too many people are tuning out NBC. Hoda and Kathie Lee had been a bright spot in the mornings. People are alarmed.”
Another source told Page Six that “Today” talent is concerned.
“The format for Megyn’s show doesn’t make sense,” they said. “Her show distracts from the ‘Today’ franchise.”
In late September, even before her new show went on the air, a survey conducted by the market research firm E-Poll found Ms. Kelly was less popular with viewers than Matt Lauer was after Ann Curry was publicly fired. The report passed around the industry showed Ms. Kelly with a “dislike” score of 45 juxtaposed to Mr. Lauer’s 22 a month after “the 2012 Curry debacle.”
E-Poll declined to confirm its findings.
The Rasmussen Reports survey found that women are actually less likely than men to have a very favorable view of Ms. Kelly, 4% to 7%, respectively. Among other gauges, the disparity isn’t noteworthy, at all.
Fifty-four percent (54%) of Americans still watch one of the three traditional TV networks—ABC, CBS and NBC—for news at least several times a week, including 31% who watch at least one of these networks every day or nearly every day. But 82% of Likely U.S. Voters say they watch cable news networks for their political news at least occasionally.
The survey of 1,000 American Adults was conducted on October 24-25, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
FILE PHOTO – Crates filled with 2011 tax forms are seen at the 96th Street Public Library in New York April 17, 2012. (Photo: Reuters)
I’ve written a couple of times to explain why the deduction for state and local taxes should be eliminated as part of pro-growth tax reform.
One of my main arguments, as I pointed out at the beginning of this interview, is that Republicans are generally unwilling to finance pro-growth tax changes by restraining government spending.
And since GOPers are too timid on spending, that means “revenue offsets” are needed to finance the good provisions in tax reform (assuming the goal is to make such changes permanent).
But this second-best approach can still be very good if the right loopholes are targeted.
In other words, wiping out the deduction is a good idea as a general principle, but it’s a very good idea in today’s environment since it would produce a lot of revenue to “offset” the cost of lowering tax rates and making our awful tax system less onerous. Plus, the deduction is unfair and inconsistent with principles of good policy.
Many organization point out that generating revenues by getting rid of the state and local deduction would be a win-win situation.
The deduction favors high-income, high-tax states like California and New York, which together receive nearly one-third of the deduction’s total value nationwide.
Getting rid of state-tax deductibility is…good policy. …deductions mainly benefit higher-income households. …The federal government…should not use the tax code to encourage or discourage.
But the most powerful and persuasive evidence for getting rid of the deduction is that organizations favoring higher taxes and bigger government openly admit that the loophole encourages and enables bad policy (what they would call good policy) at the state and local level. You don’t have to believe me. Here are some passages from a report by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
…with this deduction, higher-income filers are more willing to support state and local taxes. …Ending the SALT deduction would strain state budgets over time by making it harder for states and localities to raise…revenues… The GOP tax plan…would threaten many states’ ability to raise…revenue.
What’s amazing is that the report openly acknowledges that the deduction overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy, something that CBPP normally doesn’t like because of their support for class-warfare taxation.
But if one’s goal is bigger government, you acquiesce to reverse class warfare when it makes life easier for tax-aholic politicians in states such as California, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey.
The lesson for the rest of us, though, is that if CBPP thinks this preference for the rich is worth preserving, the rest of us should want it abolished.
Let’s close with some analysis that is compelling to me. Here’s what Ronald Reagan said when he tried to eliminate this odious loophole back in the 1980s.
P.S. I still prefer the first-best option of tax reform financed by spending restraint. If Republicans simply limited federal spending so it grew by 1.96% per year over the next 10 years, that would enable both a balanced budget and a $3 trillion tax cut. And that’s even with static scoring!
P.P.S. Back during the debate on tax reform in the 1980s, Reagan also opposed the VAT. Helps to explain why I admire the Gipper so much.
A woman pulls a hood over her head as she walks out of a Starbucks store into the cold wind at Times Square in New York, March 25, 2013. (Photo: Reuters)
The final reading of the Survey of Consumers in October finds consumer sentiment soared to 100.7, up from 95.1 and to the highest level in 13 years. This is only the second time the Sentiment Index has been above 100.0 since the end of the record 1990’s expansion, and its average during the first ten months of 2017 (96.7) has been the highest since 2000 (108.5).
“The October gain was reflected in more favorable consumers’ assessments of current economic conditions (+4.8) as well as expected economic prospects (+6.1),” Surveys of Consumers chief economist, Richard Curtin said. “Personal finances were judged near all-time record favorable levels due to gains in household incomes as well as decade highs in home and stock values.”
More than half of all respondents expect good economic times during the year ahead and anticipated the expansion to continue uninterrupted over the next 5 years.
Overall, the data indicate a 2.6% growth rate in real consumption in 2017 and in the first half of 2018. The Survey of Consumers ends a week of historically positive economic news.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) said the advance estimate for third quarter gross domestic product (GDP) was 3%, far stronger than the 2.5% median forecast. Real consumer spending increased by 2.4%, slightly more than the forecast. Jobless claims are down to the lowest levels since the 1970s and unemployment is at an all-time low.
Full employment and historic lows is a real factor in the report, as purchasing power and personal finances are near record levels.
Next data release: Friday, November 10, 2017 for Preliminary November data at 10am ET
Cargo containers sit idle at the Port of Los Angeles as a back-log of over 30 container ships sit anchored outside the Port in Los Angeles, California, February 18, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) said the advance estimate for third quarter gross domestic product (GDP) was 3%, far stronger than the 2.5% median forecast. GDP was not expected to be this strong given the devastating hurricanes, but inventory buildups served as a net plus this quarter.
The advance estimate follows a final reading of 3.1% in the second quarter, a clear indication the U.S. economy is picking up steam under the Trump Administration.
Disposable personal income increased $73.6 billion, or 2.1%, while real consumer spending increased by 2.4%, slightly more than the forecast.
Personal saving was $494.8 billion in the third quarter, compared with $545.6 billion in the second. The personal saving rate — personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income — was 3.4% in the 3Q, down from 3.8%.
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
