Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Saturday, March 15, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 352)

A journalist writes a material as she watches a live telecast of the U.S. presidential election standing at portraits of U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Union Jack pub in Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016. Russia's lower house of parliament is applauding the election of Trump as U.S. president. (Photo: AP)

A journalist writes a material as she watches a live telecast of the U.S. presidential election standing at portraits of U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Union Jack pub in Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016. Russia’s lower house of parliament is applauding the election of Trump as U.S. president. (Photo: AP)

In the early 1980’s, while serving in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), I was a fire control officer in a HAWK surface to air missile battery. Pretty soon after my basic and professional training the first Lebanese War, known as Operation Peace for Galilee broke out and my unit was deployed to the summit of Mount Barouk in Northeastern Lebanon. In this war, the IDF engaged various Palestinian militias as well as the Shia militias native to the Shia population of Southern Lebanon.

Our primary enemy, however, was Syria under the father of today’s Syrian dictator, Hafez Al-Assad. Our job was to shoot down the high-flying Syrian MiG-25 that was engaged in aerial photography of Israeli positions. As was since made publicly known, we had succeeded in that mission.

Thirty-five years later, the Syrian theater is entering a phase of extreme escalation especially as far as its airspace is concerned. It is important to realize that Syria is a small country by North American standards; it’s about the size of Washington State. In this limited airspace, four major air forces are operating twenty four hours a day: the Syrians, the Russians, the Americans, and the Israelis.

In addition to flying objects, both manned and unmanned, many of which are equipped with powerful radar systems with operational ranges in the hundreds of miles, all the aforementioned parties maintain surface based (in the case of the U.S., ship-based) surface to air (SA) missile systems that are operated at the highest levels of readiness. This means that the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum over Syria is full to bursting with every possible kind of radiation.

SA systems contain two types of radar: acquisition and illumination. Acquisition radar is designed to “acquire”, meaning “find” or “discover” all flying objects that can be classified as threats. Its energy is thus diffused through a vast volume of airspace. Illumination radar produces a very narrow beam (usually less than one degree of conical arc) that is directed at a particular flying object, bathing it in powerful EM radiation.

The only reason for illuminating a flying object in this manner is the collection of high-precision data on its trajectory, such as speed, direction of flight, and other items that are beyond the scope of this article. The collection, in real time, of this data enables the illuminating radar to “lock on” to the flying target and follow it, even in the face of extreme maneuvering by the pilot. The only objective of illuminating a target is the ability to immediately launch on it with the goal of shooting it down.

All modern military aircraft are equipped with sensors that detect when the aircraft has been illuminated. The indications to the pilots are not subtle and include audio, visual, and in some cases even tactile (a woodpecker-like solenoid repeatedly hitting the pilot’s shin) indicators. For a military pilot, having been illuminated by enemy radar means that your life is in immediate danger and a number of steps, both defensive and offensive are immediately warranted.

These steps include extreme maneuvering, flying into a gorge in order to break the line of sight between your aircraft and the illuminating radar, engaging electronic warfare systems that are designed to jam and misdirect that illuminating radar, and finally launching air to surface (AS) missiles that are designed to lock on to the illumination beam and ride it down to the illuminating radar with the purpose of destroying it. Clearly, the mission with which the aircraft has been tasked, cannot continue until illumination by hostile forces is neutralized.

The threat to US aircraft operating in the theater are not insignificant.

David Avniel, editor-in-chief of Tsionizm.com and former USAF F-15 pilot and combat veteran of Desert Storm, who also flew for the Israeli Air Force when asked to assess the tactical impact of the Russian threat: “Close ground support A-10 Warthogs are very vulnerable. USAF aircraft, depending on where the Russian S300 SA batteries are deployed are at great risk. This threat could force the use of stealth-capable F-35 and F-22 exclusively, at least in some areas. I would not be shocked to see the loss of 4th generation air frames like F/A-18, F-16 and F-15 along with A-10.”

Russia has now officially put the U.S.–and in fact the rest of the world–on notice. Any aircraft, manned or unmanned, found in the Syrian airspace east of the Euphrates river on the border with Iraq, that does not belong to either the Syrian or the Russian air forces will be classified as a hostile target and illuminated by the Russian SA systems.

The implications of this step, if in fact the reporting on it by the Russian media is accurate, amount to a declaration of war. What this means in practice, is that Russia has just declared all of Syria to be a no-fly zone for U.S., Coalition, and Israeli aircraft. This turn of events cannot be sustained neither by the US, nor by Israel. Both must fly over Syria in order to protect their vital security interests and defend their ground forces, both in Syria proper, in the Eastern Mediterranean, and in Northern Israel.

In the aforementioned First Lebanese War, Israeli Air Force destroyed, sustaining no casualties, all of the Russian made and operated SA systems in Syria, guaranteeing itself unfettered air superiority for the duration of the conflict and beyond. It is conceivable, in fact unavoidable, that the U.S. Air Force will have to take similar action in the coming days. The implications of direct engagement of Russian (as opposed to Syrian) SA installations by U.S. forces are easy to understand.

A game of chicken is playing out before our eyes. First, Trump, following up on a campaign promise, yielded tactical authority to the Pentagon. The Pentagon, under Secretary Mattis, began using the U.S. Air Force for effect rather than for show as was done under the previous administration, leading to the shoot down yesterday, by an American F-18 of a Russian built, Syrian operated Su-22. This was a direct challenge to Putin’s red line in Syria as he had very clearly articulated to Oliver Stone in a recent interview: Russia would never permit Bashar Al-Assad to suffer the fate of Saddam Hussein or Muammar Kaddafi. The shoot down of the Sukhoi was a clear message by the Americans: let’s see you stop us. It now appears that Putin has raised the stakes.

At the time of writing it appears that the Pentagon is signaling its willingness to deescalate, reaffirming that the American led anti-ISIS coalition will substantially limit its activities to northwest Syria, west of the Euphrates. An occasional radar lock on a US airplane flying close to that line should not be of too much concern, but a time will arise when US interests will require operating against Assad’s air force in the heart of Syria. At that time Mr. Trump’s leadership will be severely tested.

Why the Russian President Vladimir Putin's new

Otto Warmbier, 22, a U.S. student who was sentence to 15 years hard labor in North Korea. (Photo: AP)

Otto Warmbier, 22, a U.S. student who was sentence to 15 years hard labor in North Korea. (Photo: AP)

Otto Warmbier, the 22-year-old U.S. student imprisoned in and recently released by North Korea, “completed his journey” and died at roughly 2:20 local time. His death comes only 6 days after he was released by the leftwing North Korean regime, who had imprisoned him for 17 months.

The Warmbier family released a statement from the hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio.

“It is our sad duty to report that our son, Otto, has completed his journey home,” the Warmbier family said in a statement released from the hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio. “Surrounded by his loving family, Otto died today at 2:20 am.”

Doctors from the University of Cincinnati Medical Center said last week that Warmbier was suffering from injuries related to cardiopulmonary arrest and was in a coma. During the state of unresponsive wakefulness, scans showed extensive loss in all regions of Warmbier’s brain.

Warmbier, a student at the University of Virginia, was serving as 15-year hard labor prison term after he was accused and confessed to “a crime “pursuant to the U.S. government’s hostile policy toward (the North), in a bid to impair the unity of its people after entering it as a tourist.”

In a statement made before his trial, Warmbier was forced to tell reporters in Pyongyang he was offered a used car worth $10,000 if he could get a propaganda banner. He said he was also told that if he was detained and didn’t return, $200,000 would be paid to his mother in the form of a charitable donation.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said “at the direction of the president” his department secured the release of Warmbier. The secretary’s statement insinuated the White House was directly involved in the release, which comes as Dennis Rodman visits Pyongyang.

“It would be easy at a moment like this to focus on all that we lost — future time that won’t be spent with a warm, engaging, brilliant young man whose curiosity and enthusiasm for life knew no bounds,” the family’s statement continues. “But we choose to focus on the time we were given to be with this remarkable person. You can tell from the outpouring of emotion from the communities that he touched — Wyoming, Ohio, and the University of Virginia to name just two — that the love for Otto went well beyond his immediate family.”

The statement also thanked “the wonderful professionals at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center who did everything they could for Otto.”

“When Otto returned to Cincinnati late on June 13th he was unable to speak, unable to see and unable to react to verbal commands. He looked very uncomfortable — almost anguished. Although we would never hear his voice again, within a day the countenance of his face changed — he was at peace. He was home and we believe he could sense that.”

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who calls the area home, released a statement after Warmbier’s passing.

“Otto Warmbier was such a promising young man,” Sen. Portman wrote. “He was kind, generous and accomplished. He had all the talent you could ever ask for and a bright future ahead of him.”

Otto Warmbier, the 22-year-old U.S. student imprisoned

FILE PHOTO - House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol, hours before an expected vote to repeal Obamacare in Washington, D.C., U.S. on May 4, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

FILE PHOTO – House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol, hours before an expected vote to repeal ObamaCare in Washington, D.C., U.S. on May 4, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

The New York Times was heavily criticized after comparing the shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., last week with the shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., back in 2011. The Editorial Board at the Times did issue a revision after the backlash, leaving only fringe voices in the media to defend the comparison.

American voters don’t believe the two examples are comparable.

The People’s Pundit Daily (PPD Poll) Big Data Poll finds only 31% of likely voters say the shooting of Mr. Scalise and 3 others was predominantly criminal in nature. Fifty-six (56%) say the shooter identified as James Hodgkinson was politically motivated.

That compares to 60% who said the motivation behind the shooting of Rep. Giffords was criminal in nature. Only 28% said Jared Loughner was politically motivated when he gravely wounded Rep. Giffords and killed 6 others.

Partisanship and ideology still hold considerable predictive value, even on these two issues.

Republicans (91%) and conservatives (87%) are more likely to say the shooting involving Rep. Scalise was politically motivated, though a large percentage of Democrats (27%) also agree. Democrats are also the most likely partisan group to say they do not know. Fifty-five (55%) of moderates and 53% of independents agree the shooting was politically motivated.

A large percentage of self-identified liberals, 69%, also believe the shooting of Rep. Giffords was politically motivated. Still, that’s less than the percentage (78%) of liberals who believe the shooting at the baseball field was criminal.

[wpdatatable id=96]

Q: [Republican House Majority Whip Steve Scalise/Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords] was shot [this-last week/in 2011] by [James Hodgkinson/Jared Lee Loughner] while [practicing for the Congressional Baseball Game in Virginia/holding an event in Tucson, Arizona].

Do you believe the shooter’s motivation in the case of [Republican House Majority Whip Steve Scalise/Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords] was predominantly political or criminal?

The People’s Pundit Daily (PPD Poll) Big Data Poll follows level 1 AAPOR standards of disclosure and WAPOR/ESOMAR code of conduct. All publicly released surveys are subscriber– and individual reader donations-funded, not sponsored by any other media outlet, partisan or political entity.

The PPD Public Opinion Poll was conducted from June 14 to June 18 and is based on 1299 interviews of likely voters participating in the PPD Internet Polling Panel.

The PPD Poll has a 95% confidence interval and is not weighted based on party affiliation (party ID), but rather demographics from the U.S. Census Current Population Survey–i.e. age, gender, race, education and region etc. Partisan affiliation is derived from a proprietary likely voter model and demographic weighting, not the other way around.

The sample identified a D/R/I partisan split of 41% Republican, 36% Democrat, and 28% Independent/Other. Read more about methodology here.

The People’s Pundit Daily (PPD Poll) Big

The U.S. Supreme Court stands in Washington, D.C., on May 18, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

The U.S. Supreme Court stands in Washington, D.C., on May 18, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled unanimously 8-0 a federal trademark law banning offensive names is unconstitutional. It was a resounding defeat for political correctness, as the ruling on Monday will widely be seen as having much broader implications.

The Court, siding with a rock band whose name had been deemed racially disparaging by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ruled the law’s so-called “disparagement clause” violates the First Amendment, specifically the free speech clause.

The case centered on Oregon-based, Asian-American band The Slants, which was denied a trademark because its name was considered offensive. The law prohibited registration of trademarks that “may disparage … persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols.”

The band countered that the 70-year-old law violates their freedom of speech. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court’s unanimous opinion, agreed. While he did state in his opinion that the government “has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend,” he did so by definitely stating that these cases do not apply to what is a narrow application.

“Trademarks are private, not government, speech.”

The Court also made clear that the case required them to determine whether the disparagement clause is indeed constitutional.

“Because the disparagement clause applies to marks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group, we must decide whether the clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” Justice Alito explained in the opinion. “And at the outset, we must consider three arguments that would either eliminate any First Amendment protection or result in highly permissive rational-basis review. ”

The Court could have skirted the issue, but it chose not to do so.

“The commercial market is well stocked with merchandise that disparages prominent figures and groups, and the line between commercial and non-commercial speech is not always clear, as this case illustrates,” Justice Alito wrote. “If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social ‘volatility,’ free speech would be endangered.”

“For these reasons, we hold that the disparagement clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The judgment of the Federal Circuit is affirmed.”

The ruling was good news for the Washington Redskins and others embroiled in a legal fight over their name. The trademark office canceled the football team’s lucrative, long-standing trademarks in 2014 after declaring the word “Redskins” was disparaging to Native Americans. That’s not even remotely accurate, but even if it was is now likely to be protected under the First Amendment.

[pdfviewer width=”740px” height=”849px” beta=”true/false”]https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/SCOTUS-Opinion-JOSEPH-MATAL-INTERIM-DIRECTOR-UNITED-STATES-PATENT-AND-TRADEMARK-OFFICE-PETITIONER-v.-SIMON-SHIAO-TAM.pdf[/pdfviewer]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously 8-0

Stephen Bittel Oscar Braynon

Florida Democratic Party Chairman Stephen Bittel, left, and Oscar Braynon, right, the Senate Democratic leader.

Florida Democrats, still reeling from their defeat, continue to lag in fundraising efforts, self-reported party affiliation and raw voter registration. With only $400,000 in cash through the end of May, the Florida Democratic Party held their big annual fundraiser on Saturday night.

The Leadership Blue Gala, which featured Vice President Joe Biden as the keynote speaker, was plagued by racial remarks made by the party chairman, Stephen Bittel. Democratic lawmakers at the event were furious after he said “these black lawmakers” were “like children” and “just don’t get it.”

State Senate Democratic leader Oscar Braynon of Miami Gardens and House Democratic leader Janet Cruz of Tampa wanted to present the members of their respective caucuses. But Mr. Bittel bumped the presentation so that Mr. Biden, who said the speech was keeping him from his wife on the night of their 40th wedding anniversary, could give the keynote.

State Sen. Lauren Book of Plantation, confronted Mr. Bittel about the bump after dinner, which drew his response about African-American lawmakers. Worth noting, Rep. Cruz is Hispanic and other caucus members are caucasian.

“He said, ‘They’re like children, these black lawmakers. They just don’t get it,’” Mr. Braynon said as he recounted what Sen. Book told him. “‘I raised more money in this amount of time than they ever could.’”

Mr. Bittel has apologized for the remarks.

But it’s not a good start for either the chairman or a party that was defeated up-and-down ballot. Hillary Clinton lost the Sunshine State to President Donald Trump, and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., went on to comfortably defeat Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy.

Mr. Bittel, a longtime donor and Miami Beach real estate developer, only secured the chair by vowing to put his national fundraising network to work to raise money for the besieged party. Instead, during his first quarter as chairman, he raised only $843,386 juxtaposed to the $1.1 million his predecessor Allison Tant raised.

Republicans raised $2.46 million during those same months and Florida Democrats have already been forced to take out a $200,000 line of credit to allegedly increase digital advertising.

“FDP received central committee approval to take out a one year, $200,000 line of credit to give us the opportunity and flexibility to invest in additional digital and messaging opportunities,” Johanna Cervone, the party’s press secretary said in a statement.

She did not provide an exact time the party got the line of credit or from which financial institution.

Democrats argue that the numbers aren’t comparable because fundraising for state Senate campaigns is no longer included in the overall total. But that’s also the result of Mr. Bittel’s inability to resolve disagreements they have with him.

There’s little way to spin the dire financial straits the party has been in since the loss in November. From January 1 to the end of April, the Florida Democratic Party had spent $162,000 more than it had raised and only had $5,316 cash on hand.

On voter registration, with all the demographics in their favor Democrats are clearly still headed in the wrong direction after three cycles. Since 2008, Democrats have only registered about 100,000 additional voters to their ranks, while Republicans have added more than 400,000. Independents, which switched from backing Mr. Obama to President Trump, have increased by nearly 1 million.

Meanwhile, even as his national numbers have fallen, President Trump remains popular in the Sunshine State and self-reported party affiliation has trended more favorable to Republicans.

The PPD Battleground State Likely Voter Profiles have shown a slight 1.5-point swing to Republicans, who now hold a 0.4% edge. That’s a shift from when Democrats held a slight 1.1% edge.

“President Trump won Florida because he flipped independent voters in the I-4 corridor, ran up enormous margins in the Panhandle and won the Cuban-American vote in South Florida by a substantial margin,” said Richard D. Baris, PPD’s editor-in-chief and head of the PPD Poll. “When independents are added to the mix, Republicans have slightly expanded their edge in this state.”

Unlike other oft-cited surveys, PPD Battleground State Polls pegged President Trump’s victories on the statewide level in all but two states we identified as battlegrounds within tens of percentage points, including Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Our final PPD Sunshine State Battleground Poll released on Nov. 6 found him leading Hillary Clinton by 1.6%, rounded up to two points.

He won by 1.2%.

Florida Democrats, still reeling from their defeat,

James Comey, left, testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on July 8, 2015. Robert Mueller, right, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 19, 2013. (Photos: Reuters)

James Comey, left, testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on July 8, 2015. Robert Mueller, right, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 19, 2013. (Photos: Reuters)

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has not yet opened an obstruction of justice case against President Donald Trump, and hasn’t even made the decision to do so. Multiple sources tell People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) that Mr. Mueller hasn’t decided on the scope of the investigation, let alone whether it will eventually include President Trump.

Last Wednesday, The Washington Post reported the special counsel was investigating the President for obstruction of justice over his firing of former FBI Director James Comey. Worth noting, the story was reportedly “rushed and hushed” without undergoing the paper’s normal editorial process.

PPD has learned that Mr. Mueller is still not finished putting his team together.

Last Friday, President Trump added to the confusion by responding to the Washington Post story in a tweet.

“I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt.”

“The man” the President was referring to is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein, who authored a scathing critique of the fired FBI director’s handling of the Clinton email case. President Trump requested he write up the letter to support the decision to fire Mr. Comey.

The White House spent the day clarifying that the President was not confirming whether he was indeed under investigation, but rather was simply responding to the report. Jay Sekulow, a member of the president’s legal team, on Sunday still had to repeat he was not literally confirming the investigation.

“Let me be clear: the President is not under investigation as James Comey stated in his testimony,” Mr. Sekulow said on “Fox News Sunday.” “The president is not a subject or target of an investigation.”

During his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, Mr. Comey stopped short of accusing President Trump of obstruction of justice, something legal experts on both sides have mocked.

Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley said the testimony in the hearing “actually helped Trump and his legal case,” adding that even if we accept his version of events he “did not describe a crime or an impeachable offense.”

However, Mr. Comey did say he took the President’s “hope” comment as a “directive.”

When asked by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the former director dodged.

“I don’t think it’s for me to say,” Mr. Comey responded. “That’ll be a question for the special counsel.”

According to 18 USC 4 and 28 USC 1361, if at the time Mr. Comey believed the comment constituted obstruction of justice, he was legally required to report it.

Regardless, the Post report indicated the obstruction case was being built around the actual firing of Mr. Comey. Thus far, he is the only former or current agency head to even suggest the President attempted to pressure or obstruct the Russia probe.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has not yet

F-18 Super Hornet.

F-18 Super Hornet.

Russian officials on Monday threatened to treat U.S.-led coalition planes in certain regions of Syria after an F-18 Super Hornet shown down a SU-22 Sunday. It was the first time a U.S. warplane shot down another country’s aircraft since a U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagle shot down a Serbian MiG-29 over Kosovo in 1999.

Russia’s defense ministry said planes flying in Syria west of the Euphrates River would be treated as potential targets. They claimed it was a “deliberate failure to make good on its commitments” under the previous deal.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told state-run news agencies that the U.S. was “helping the terrorists that the U.S. is fighting against.”

The U.S. said the action was it a necessary action. Special forces embedded with U.S.-backed opposition fighters said President Bashar al-Assad’s forces have been attacking their positions in the northern province of Raqqa.

They contacted Russia and warned that if the attacks didn’t cease, the U.S. would take action.

Russian officials on Monday threatened to treat

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton speaks to media after signing bills to eliminate the state's $5 billion budget deficit and reopen state government and services that have been shut down for three weeks, in St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S. on July 20, 2011. (Photo: Reuters)

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton speaks to media after signing bills to eliminate the state’s $5 billion budget deficit and reopen state government and services that have been shut down for three weeks, in St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S. on July 20, 2011. (Photo: Reuters)

Whenever I debate my left-wing friends on tax policy, they routinely assert that taxes don’t matter.

It’s unclear, though, whether they really believe their own rhetoric.

After all, if taxes don’t affect economic behavior, then why are folks on the left so terrified of tax havens? Why are they so opposed to tax competition?

And why are they so anxious to defend loopholes such as the deduction for state and local taxes.

Perhaps most revealing, why do leftists sometimes cut taxes when they hold power? A story in The Wall Street Journal notes that there’s been a little-noticed wave of state tax cuts. Specifically reductions and/or eliminations of state death taxes. And many of these supply-side reforms are happening in left-wing states!

In the past three years, nine states have eliminated or lowered their estate taxes, mostly by raising exemptions. And more reductions are coming. Minnesota lawmakers recently raised the state’s estate-tax exemption to $2.1 million retroactive to January, and the exemption will rise to $2.4 million next year. Maryland will raise its $3 million exemption to $4 million next year. New Jersey’s exemption, which used to rank last at $675,000 a person, rose to $2 million a person this year. Next year, New Jersey is scheduled to eliminate its estate tax altogether, joining about a half-dozen others that have ended their estate taxes over the past decade.

This is good news for affected taxpayers, but it’s also good news for the economy.

Death taxes are not only a punitive tax on capital, but they also discourage investors, entrepreneurs, and other high-income people from earning income once they have accumulated a certain level of savings.

But let’s focus on politics rather than economics. Why are governors and state legislators finally doing something sensible? Why are they lowering tax burdens on “rich” taxpayers instead of playing their usual game of class warfare?

I’d like to claim that they’re reading Cato Institute research, or perhaps studies from other market-oriented organizations and scholars.

But it appears that tax competition deserves most of the credit.

This tax-cutting trend has been fueled by competition between the states for affluent and wealthy taxpayers. Such residents owe income taxes every year, but some are willing to move out of state to avoid death duties that come only once. Since the federal estate-and-gift tax exemption jumped to $5 million in 2011, adjusted for inflation, state death duties have stood out.

I don’t fully agree with the above excerpt because there’s plenty of evidence that income taxes cause migration from high-tax states to zero-income-tax states.

But I agree that a state death tax can have a very large impact, particularly once a successful person has retired and has more flexibility.

Courtesy of the Tax Foundation, here are the states that still impose this destructive levy.

Though this map may soon have one less yellow state. As reported by the WSJ, politicians in the Bay State may be waking up.

In Massachusetts, some lawmakers are worried about losing residents to other states because of its estate tax, which brought in $400 million last year. They hope to raise the exemption to half the federal level and perhaps exclude the value of a residence as well. These measures stand a good chance of passage even as lawmakers are considering raising income taxes on millionaires, says Kenneth Brier, an estate lawyer with Brier & Ganz LLP in Needham, Mass., who tracks the issue for the Massachusetts Bar Association. State officials “are worried about a silent leak of people down to Florida, or even New Hampshire,” he adds.

I’m not sure the leak has been silent. There’s lots of data on the migration of productive people to lower-tax states.

But what matters is that tax competition is forcing the state legislature (which is overwhelmingly Democrat) to do the right thing, even though their normal instincts would be to squeeze upper-income taxpayers for more money.

As I’ve repeatedly written, tax competition also has a liberalizing impact on national tax policy.

Following the Reagan tax cuts and Thatcher tax cuts, politicians all over the world felt pressure to lower their tax rates on personal income. The same thing has happened with corporate tax rates, though Ireland deserves most of the credit for getting that process started.

I’ll close by recycling my video on tax competition. It focuses primarily on fiscal rivalry between nations, but the lessons equally apply to states.

[brid video=”146908″ player=”2077″ title=”Tax Competition A Liberalizing Force in the World Economy”]

Leftwing politicians criticize the Laffer Curve and

A national flag of Switzerland flies in front of a branch office of Swiss bank Credit Suisse in Luzern October 30, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

A national flag of Switzerland flies in front of a branch office of Swiss bank Credit Suisse in Luzern October 30, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

There’s a lot to admire about Switzerland, particularly compared to its profligate neighbors.

With all these features, you won’t be surprised to learn that Switzerland is highly ranked by Human Freedom Index (#2), Economic Freedom of the World (#4), Index of Economic Freedom (#4), Global Competitiveness Report (#1), Tax Oppression Index (#1), and World Competitiveness Yearbook (#2).

Today let’s augment our list of good Swiss policies for reviewing the near-universal system of private pensions. I’ve been in Switzerland this week for a couple of speeches in Geneva, as well as interviews and meetings in Zurich and Bern.

As part of my travels around the country, I took the time to learn more about the “second pillar” of the country’s pension system.

Here’s a basic description from the Swiss government (with the help of Google translate).

The first pension funds were founded more than a hundred years ago… In 1972 the occupational pensions were included in the constitution. There it represents the second column in the three-column concept… The BVG compulsory scheme applies to all employees who are already insured in the first pillar… Pension provision in the second pillar is based on an individual savings process. This starts at 25 years. However, the condition is an annual income that exceeds the threshold (since 2015: 21’150 francs). The savings process ends with the reaching of the pension age. The accumulated savings in the individual account of the insured [are] used to finance the retirement pension.

If you want something in original English, here’s a brief description from the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce.

The second pillar is governed by the provisions of the laws on occupational pension provision (BVG)… Employees who are paid by the same employer an annual salary exceeding CHF 21,150 are subject to compulsory insurance. The share of the salary which is subject to compulsory insurance is…between CHF 24,675 (the coordination deduction) and CHF 84,600… An employer who employs persons subject to compulsory insurance must be affiliated to a provident institution entered in the register for occupational benefit plan. The contributions into the pension scheme depend on age and include a minimum saving portion of 7% – 18% of the coordinated salary plus a risk portion. Both are equally shared between employer and employee. The benefits of the insured persons consist in the old age, invalidity and survivors pensions.

One of the interesting quirks of the system is that the mandatory contribution rate changes with age. The older you are, the more you pay.

I’m not sure that makes a lot of sense if the goal is for people to have big nest eggs when they retire, but nobody asked me. In any event, here’s a table showing the age-dependent contribution rates from an OECD description of the Swiss system.

Technically speaking, the contributions are evenly split between employees and employers, though labor economists widely agree that workers bear the real cost.

It’s also worth noting that the Swiss system is based on “defined contribution” like the Chilean and Australian private retirement systems. This means  retirement income generally is a function of how much is saved and how well it is invested.

By contrast, the Dutch private system is based on “defined benefit,” which means that workers get a pre-determined level of retirement income. As evidenced by huge shortfalls in the defined benefit regimes maintained by many public and private employers in the United States, this approach is very risky if there aren’t high levels of integrity and honesty.

Though that doesn’t seem to be a problem in the Netherlands. Speaking of the Dutch system, here’s a chart I shared back in 2014.

It was designed to laud the Netherlands, but you can see that Switzerland also had a large pool of pension assets, equal to more than 110 percent of GDP (according to OECD data, now 123 percent of GDP).

Looking at this data, ask yourself whether Switzerland (or the Netherlands, Iceland, Australia, etc) will be in a stronger position to handle the fiscal challenge of aging populations, particularly when compared to nations with virtually no private pension assets, such as France, Greece, and Japan.

The Swiss regime certainly isn’t perfect, and neither are the systems in other nations with private retirement savings. But at least those nations are in much better shape to deal with future demographic changes. Workers in Switzerland and other countries with similar systems have real assets rather than unsustainable political promises. And it’s also worth pointing out that there are macroeconomic benefits for nations that rely more on private savings rather than tax-and-transfer entitlement schemes.

In other words, the Swiss system is much better than America’s bankrupt Social Security scheme.

Leftwing politicians in the U.S. admire Nordic

Walmart Amazon Split (Photo: Reuters)

Walmart Amazon Split (Photo: Reuters)

Amazon.com Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN) announced an all-cash deal Friday to buy grocery chain Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ:WFM) for $42 per share. The deal, which is valued at roughly $13.7 billion, scooped the news that Walmart Stores Inc (NYSE:WMT) plans to acquire Bonobos—a leading men’s clothing brands built on the internet in a deal valued at $310 million.

When the deal is closed, Andy Dunn, founder and CEO of Bonobos will report to Marc Lore, President and CEO of Walmart U.S. The move is meant to cut into Amazon and expand Walmart’s overall growing share of the eCommerce market.

“We’re seeing momentum in the business as we expand our value proposition with customers and it’s incredible to see how fast we’re moving,” said Mr. Lore. “Adding innovators like Andy will continue to help us shape the future of Walmart, and the future of retail. I’m thrilled to welcome Andy and the entire Bonobos team. They’ve created an amazing product and customer experience, and that will not change.”

“In fact, Andy will be a great influence on the company, especially in leading our collection of exclusive brands offered online.”

But Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is also expanding his empire with the move to acquire Whole Foods Market, which spiraled Walmart and other mainstay shares. Like Walmart, the eCommerce giant  is experimenting with drive-up grocery stores models.

In May, they opened two test locations in Seattle, Washington, which give Amazon Prime subscribers the ability to place a grocery order online and then pick-up at a drive through window. Last week, Walmart announced plans to test an automated grocery kiosk at a store location in Oklahoma City. Customers will order groceries via an app and pickup will be available at a physical location using a special code.

Amazon closed at $987.71, a gain of 23.54 points, or 2.44%. Walmart closed at $75.24, a decline of 3.67 points, or -4.65%. Whole Foods Market closed at $42.68, a gain of 9.62 points, or 29.10%.

“Whole Foods Market has been satisfying, delighting and nourishing customers for nearly four decades – they’re doing an amazing job and we want that to continue,” Mr. Bezos said in a statement.

Shares of Kroger Co (NYSE:KR) on Thursday saw their biggest percentage drop, 24.6%, since 1999. On Friday, shares closed at $22.29, a decline of 2.27 points, or -9.24%. Whole Foods Market was a prime target for acquisition for both Walmart and Kroger.

Walmart’s deal with Bonobos follows their previous acquisitions of apparel retailers Moosejaw and Modcloth. Last August, it paid $3 billion for consumer products retailer Jet.com.

Amazon.com Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN) and Walmart Stores Inc

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial