Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Sunday, February 9, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 487)
Opinion

In this weekly column and in my on-air work at Fox News, I have characterized former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a crook and as the “Queen of Deception.” I have argued that there is enough credible evidence in the public domain to indict, prosecute and convict her of espionage, perjury, misleading Congress, public corruption, providing material assistance to terrorist organizations and obstruction of justice.

I can point to five times when she lied under oath. I know of FBI agents who believe that their hands were tied by the Obama administration in the criminal investigation of her. And I know of American intelligence agents who firmly believe that Americans died because Clinton failed to keep state secrets secure.

She sent emails containing state secrets to a former aide whom she knew lacked any security clearance and whose emails were hacked by hostile foreign governments, and she left classified documents in a bedroom in a foreign embassy where personnel without clearances had access to them.

She refused to use government-secured email devices because she wanted to keep her behavior hidden from the public and from the president. Some of that behavior had to do with using the power of the government to enrich her family’s foundation. I have argued that there is strong, credible evidence to demonstrate that she exercised her official behavior as secretary of state in accordance with the financial needs of her family’s foundation. She refused to see some foreign dignitaries until they gave money to the foundation.

She had her close personal aide, Huma Abedin, employed by the foundation while she was employed by the State Department, such that folks who dealt with Abedin knew that she would ask them for money for the foundation as Clinton’s official gatekeeper; and they’d need to make those payments in return for favorable treatment from the secretary of state.

She even permitted Russian President Vladimir Putin to gain control of a Utah uranium mine in return for the payment by an intermediary of $145 million to her family’s foundation.

Some of the behavior Clinton hid involved her waging an illegal and disastrous war in Libya, in which she used the American intelligence community rather than the U.S. military so as to keep Congress largely in the dark. She conspired with a dozen members of Congress and with President Barack Obama to fight the secret war to topple Libyan strongman and American ally Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

She used her lawful authority as secretary of state to authorize exemptions to the U.N. embargo of arms to Libya by American and foreign arms dealers. She permitted the sale of arms to groups in Libya that were masquerading as anti-Gadhafi militias but — according to the CIA — were actually terrorist organizations.

She rejected the advice of the CIA and thereby provided material aid to terrorist organizations — a felony under U.S. law. The result of her secret war was the destruction of all order and culture in Libya, the institution of mob rule and the assassination of the American ambassador.

Yet none of the above was articulated by Donald Trump in his debate with Clinton earlier this week.

Trump utterly failed to capitalize on her greatest vulnerabilities — the widespread and largely well-grounded belief that she is untrustworthy and her well-documented record as a failure as secretary of state. I know one of his debate coaches very well. I suspect that the coach gave him superb ideas and one-line zingers, none of which he used. I also suspect that the coach’s advice went in one of Trump’s ears and out the other.

Presidential debates are not won on points and counterpoints. They are won on general impressions. The general impression from Monday’s highly anticipated debate is that Clinton brilliantly controlled the ball and Trump came utterly unprepared. She succeeded in arresting her fall in the polls and reassuring her Democratic base. He failed to give independents and wavering Republicans a good reason to back him.

She clobbered him.

But both candidates’ performances deeply disappointed me. I confess to a moral preference for personal liberty in our supposedly free society. Did you hear the word “freedom” or any of its variants or the Constitution mentioned by either debater? I did not.

Neither talked about natural rights — personal liberties coming from our humanity and untouchable by the government. Trump argued for letting the police stop you on a whim. Clinton argued for massive increases in wealth transfers.

Neither understands the economy. Both want the government to force employers to pay higher wages, to impose higher taxes on the most productive in our society, to impose tariffs on goods we import and to increase our $19.5 trillion national debt. Aren’t those behaviors just what got us into our present precarious economic straits, where all federal tax revenue is now consumed by wealth transfers, the Pentagon and interest on the government debt, with the government being run on borrowed money and borrowed time?

Neither mentioned the primacy of the individual over the state, and neither spoke about the guarantees of liberty in the Bill of Rights. Both believe in a government that can right any wrong, regulate any behavior and tax any event.

Who really wants a choice between two proponents of monster government, bigger than it is now? Whatever became of “that government is best which governs least”? Who will protect us from a government that takes more than it gives?

Donald Trump utterly failed to capitalize on

Polls

Donald Trump Spokane Washington

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump greets supporters as he arrives for a rally in Spokane, Wash., Saturday, May 7, 2016. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

Following some terrifying polling data out of Minnesota, another traditionally blue state is too close for Democratic comfort. A new [content_tooltip id=”38226″ title=”Emerson College Polling University”] finds Democrat Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump in Washington State by just 6 points, 44% to 38%. The poll, which was taken before the debate, finds Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson getting 7% of the vote and Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein getting 5%.

Six (6%) percent remain undecided.

Only 60% of voters who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Evergreen State back Mrs. Clinton. Emerson College Polls, much like the PPD U.S. Presidential Election Daily Tracking Poll, repeatedly find Mrs. Clinton has yet to consolidate independent and Democratic voters who supported her rival. She received the support of just 7,140 caucus-goers to 19,159 for Sen. Sanders during the nomination contest, and only 27 out of the 101 delegates awarded in the state.

But Mr. Trump still has base issues, as well, winning 88% of those who voted for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz but only 28% of those who back Gov. John Kasich in the primary. Twenty-two (22%) percent of Kasich voters support Mrs. Clinton. The bright side for Trump supporters is that there weren’t many Kasich supporters, though every vote will matter. The GOP nominee won roughly 70% of the vote in the Washington State Republican Primary.

In the U.S. Senate race in Washington, four-term incumbent Democrat Patty Murray leads Republican Chris Vance 48% to 41%, and 8% are undecided.

Worth noting, Emerson College, which was awarded a lifetime grade of an A on the PPD Pollster Scorecard, was one of the most accurate polling outfits in the country during the 2016 primary season. Emerson College released 16 surveys in 8 states and was correct 94% of the time (92% lifetime), with an average error of 7.2%.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump leads Mrs. Clinton in Nebraska by 27 points, 56% to 29%, with Gov. Johnson at 7% and Dr. Stein at 1%. The Cornhusker State was a target for Democrats who were hoping their nominee might be able to peel away a few reliably Republican electoral votes. Like Maine, electoral votes are also awarded based on the winner of each Congressional District. However, the New York businessman leads among men, women, all age groups and all Congressional Districts. In the First and Third Congressional Districts, he leads by margins of 53% to 29% and 65% to 20%, respectively. In the Second Congressional District, he only leads by 9 points, 49% to 40%.

Nebraska is only the second state where Emerson College found Mr. Trump has a positive favorable/unfavorable ratio (50% to 45%). Mrs. Clinton is taking only 57% of Sen. Sanders primary voters, while Trump is taking 15%. That’s larger than the percentage of Sanders voters who are going for the Republican nominee (10%) in Washington State, where Stein also takes 17%.

Emerson College Polling University: Washington, Nebraska General Election Polls

The Emerson College Washington poll was conducted September 25-26, and the Nebraska poll was conducted September 25-27 under the Supervision of Professor Spencer Kimball. Both samples consisted of 700 likely general election voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.6%. Data was weighted by 2012 election results, age, gender, region and party affiliation. It is important to remember that subsets based on gender, age and party breakdowns carry with them higher margins of error, as the sample size is reduced. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines only. The full methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com.

A new Emerson College Poll finds Democrat

Politics

Barack Obama State of the Union (SOTU) 2016

U.S. President Barack Obama, center, delivers his final State of the Union address on Tuesday, January 12, 2015. (Reuters: Evan Vucci/Pool)

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives joined the U.S. Senate in dealing President Barack Obama the first veto override of his presidency. The House voted 348-77 and the Senate 97-1 on Wednesday to override President Obama’s veto of a bill permitting families of September 11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.

The vote marks the first time Congress could successfully override a veto during Obama’s presidency. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the outgoing Senate minority leader, was always able to block votes that would’ve resulted in an override, effectively protecting President Obama from legislative embarrassments, particularly during his time as majority leader.

The lone “no” vote in the U.S. Senate came from Sen. Reid. Worth noting, even though he was holding an event only 20 minutes away from the Capitol at 9 a.m., Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, was not present for the vote. The floor vote began in the Senate around noon.

The bill gives victims’ families the right to sue in U.S. court for any role that certain actors within the Saudi government may have played in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Fifteen (15) of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals and, as a result, the bill “amends the federal judicial code to narrow the scope of foreign sovereign immunity by authorizing U.S. courts to hear cases involving claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages that occur inside the United States as a result of a tort, including an act of terrorism, committed anywhere by a foreign state or official.”

President Obama vetoed the bill after the House passed Senate bill 2040 (S.2040), known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act,  or JASTA, ignoring threats from the president and Riyadh. The Saudi government vowed to pull billions of dollars from the U.S. economy. In a last-ditch effort to stop the override, the president wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kty., and Sen. Reid, warning the bill would be used by other countries to justify the creation of ways to target “U.S. policies and activities that they oppose.”

“As a result, our nation and its armed forces, State Department, intelligence officials and others may find themselves subject to lawsuits in foreign courts.” Mr. Obama wrote in a letter on Tuesday.

Mr. Obama further said the legislation will damage U.S. foreign relations with Saudi Arabia and other nations. However, Sen. Cornyn called the arguments made by Mr. Obama “unpersuasive.” He said the bill only applies narrowly to acts of terrorism that occur on U.S. soil.

“This bill is about respecting the voices and rights of American victims,”Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said.

“It’s very simple. If the Saudis were culpable, they should be held accountable. If they had nothing to do with 9/11, they have nothing to fear,” said Sen. Charles “Chuck” Schumer, D-N.Y., who cosponsored the bill with Sen. Cornyn.

So, what role did the Saudis play in the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor?

That remains unclear and open to discussions, but the relatives of Sept. 11 victims had been urging the Obama administration to declassify and release U.S. intelligence that allegedly discusses possible Saudi involvement in the attacks. In July, a 28-page 2002 congressional report on the September 11, 2001 terror attacks was released Friday and it indicated some of the hijackers had ties to people in the Saudi government.

The report cited the reason for a “limited understanding” of Saudi Arabia’s role and financing of terror groups as an unwillingness to investigate “due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American ‘ally.’” It also revealed that in 2002–only a year after the deadliest terror attacks in U.S. history–the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had numerous leads indicating ties between Saudis in America and some of the hijackers, specifically the two that took control of Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.

Saudi-Royal-Family-AP

Members of the royal family, including Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, left, who is one of the men allegedly responsible for funding Bin Laden. (Photos: AP/Getty/AFP)

Further, it links associates of the hijackers and Saudi Arabian Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former longtime ambassador to the United States. In a phone book found on al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, who was captured in Pakistan in 2002.

The documents released claim Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi national who helped two of the hijackers in San Diego, Calif., was suspected of being a Saudi intelligence officer. “Al-Bayoumi was known to have access to large amounts of money from Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that he did not appear to hold a job,” the report said.

While the 9/11 Commission found him to be an “unlikely candidate for clandestine involvement” with Islamic extremists, the new document says that FBI files indicated al-Bayoumi had “extensive contact with Saudi government establishments in the United States and received financial support from a Saudi company affiliated with the Saudi Ministry of Defense. … That company reportedly had ties to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.”

The bill also “amends the federal criminal code to permit civil claims against a foreign state or official for injuries, death, or damages from an act of international terrorism. Additionally, the bill authorizes federal courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over and impose liability on a person who commits, or aids, abets, or conspires to commit, an act of international terrorism against a U.S. national.”

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives joined the

Politics

U.S. President Barack Obama attends a press conference following a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland, July 8, 2016. (Photo: AFP)

U.S. President Barack Obama attends a press conference following a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland, July 8, 2016. (Photo: AFP)

UPDATE, READ FULL: The House soon joined the Senate, dealing President Barack Obama his first veto override of his presidency.

ORIGINAL STORY: The Senate voted overwhelmingly 97-1 on Wednesday to override President Barack Obama’s veto of a bill permitting families of September 11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia. The vote marks the first time Congress could successfully override a veto during Obama’s presidency. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the outgoing Senate minority leader, was always able to block votes that would’ve resulted in an override, effectively protecting President Obama from legislative embarrassments, particularly during his time as majority leader.

The lone “no” vote came from Sen. Reid. Worth noting, even though he was holding an event 20 minutes away from the Capitol at 9 a.m., Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, was not present for the vote in the Senate that took place around noon.

The bill “amends the federal judicial code to narrow the scope of foreign sovereign immunity by authorizing U.S. courts to hear cases involving claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages that occur inside the United States as a result of a tort, including an act of terrorism, committed anywhere by a foreign state or official.”

President Obama issued the veto after the GOP-controlled House of Representatives passed Senate bill 2040 (S.2040), known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. In May, the GOP-controlled Senate had unanimously approved the bill, ignoring veto threats from the president and Riyadh vowing to pull billions of dollars from the U.S. economy.

“It’s very simple. If the Saudis were culpable, they should be held accountable. If they had nothing to do with 9/11, they have nothing to fear,” said Sen. Charles “Chuck” Schumer, D-N.Y., who cosponsored the bill with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kty., and Sen. Reid, President Obama warned the bill would damage U.S. foreign relations with Saudi Arabia and other nations, as other countries would use the measure to justify the creation of ways to target “U.S. policies and activities that they oppose.”

“As a result, our nation and its armed forces, State Department, intelligence officials and others may find themselves subject to lawsuits in foreign courts.” Mr. Obama wrote in a letter on Tuesday.

However, Sen. Cornyn called the arguments made by Mr. Obama “unpersuasive.” He said the bill only applies narrowly to acts of terrorism that occur on U.S. soil.

“This bill is about respecting the voices and rights of American victims,” Sen. Cornyn said.

The bill also “amends the federal criminal code to permit civil claims against a foreign state or official for injuries, death, or damages from an act of international terrorism. Additionally, the bill authorizes federal courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over and impose liability on a person who commits, or aids, abets, or conspires to commit, an act of international terrorism against a U.S. national.”

The Senate voted overwhelmingly 97-1 Wednesday to

Economy

durable-goods-reuters

American workers at a manufacturing plant for long-lasting durable goods. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

The Commerce Department reported on Wednesday durable goods orders were unchanged in August from the prior month, still beating the median forecast. Economists expected orders for long-lasting manufactured goods to decrease by 1.4%.

Durable goods are manufactured products such as cars, refrigerators and airplanes designed and expected to last longer than three years-were. Excluding the volatile categories of defense and transportation products, or products largely paid for by taxpayers, durable goods orders actually declined.

Meanwhile, durable goods orders excluding transportation fell by 0.4% and have decrease during three of the past four months,, matching the median forecast. Orders outside of defense fell 1% last month from July.

The Commerce Department reported on Wednesday durable

Polls

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump shakes hands with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton after the presidential debate at Hofstra University. (Photo: Associated Press/AP)

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump shakes hands with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton after the presidential debate at Hofstra University. (Photo: Associated Press/AP)

A Post Debate Poll conducted after the presidential showdown at Hofstra University finds Hillary Clinton put on the best performance, but Donald Trump won votes. While voters 47% to 44% think that Mrs. Clinton “won the first presidential debate,” Mr. Trump won over undecided voters who changed their mind by nearly a 3 to 1 margin.

Nine percent (9%) were undecided on the question of who won the debate.

Among those who were undecided (5%) before the debate, 31% changed their mind and now say they’ll support the New York businessman. By comparison, only 11% of previously undecided voters said they will now vote for the former secretary of state.

The results were noteworthy, considering more voters than not thought Mrs. Clinton gave a better debate performance. Authenticity, honesty and trustworthiness played and will continue to play a big role in voters’ preferences ahead of November.

“Voters are looking for Donald Trump to basically give them permission to vote for him, fair or not,” says PPD’s senior analyst Richard Baris. “If he improves in the next two debates, which he did during the primary, things could get really ugly really fast for Hillary Clinton.”

Regarding the debate, which most mainstream pundits gave to Mrs. Clinton, most voters expected her to be polished on stage. But they were watching to see if Mr. Trump could pass the presidential bar.

“He was restrained, He came off much more natural,” said Shaun Ellis, an independent voter from Hopington, New Hampshire. “Hillary looked weak on the economy,” adding he decided “we need new blood.”

Of course, not everyone agreed he met that bar. The good news for Mr. Trump and his supporters: the vast majority of those who don’t think he met that threshold are Democratic partisans.

“I’m supporting Hillary because of her history and experience,” said Dr. Joseph S. Johnson, an African-American Democrat from Centerville, Ohio, a key battleground state. “Hillary won the debate. Her grade was a B+ and Donald Trump’s temperament was awful. His grade–F.”

Mr. Trump has made a major play for black voters juxtaposed to previous GOP nominees and, while the PPP U.S. Presidential Election Daily Tracking Poll finds his support has increased from 5% in August to roughly 11% by the end of September, other public polls have shown he continues to struggle.

“Trump showed obvious passion and concern for the individual Americans he’s heard from in his rallies and campaigning,” said Tawonya L. Johnson, an African-American voter of Snohomish, Washington. “And this solidified my decision to vote Trump for President.”

Still, both candidates scored a high retention rate among their voters. Only 2% of Mrs. Clinton’s previous supporters and 1% of Mr. Trump’s supporters said they are now undecided after the debate. Among Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, 3% changed their mind to Mr. Trump and, among his supporters, 2% changed their mind to his Democratic rival.

“Having to choose a lesser evil, Donald is genuine,” said Kathleen Downing, an independent from Lincoln Park, Michigan. Ms. Downing describes herself as a moderate liberal, but she believes Mrs. Clinton “is a well-rehearsed performer” who “will say anything” to get elected.

The PPD Post Debate Poll surveyed 829 likely voters nationwide participating in the People’s Pundit Daily Internet Polling Panel. Responses were gathered from September 26 to September 27 outside of the U.S. Presidential Election Daily Tracking Poll. The survey has a 95% CI (confidence interval).

A PPD Post Debate Poll conducted after

Elections

Minnesota a battleground state in the 2016 presidential election between Republican Donald J. Trump and Democrat Hillary R. Clinton.

Minnesota a battleground state in the 2016 presidential election between Republican Donald J. Trump and Democrat Hillary R. Clinton.

While most election forecasters did not consider it a battleground state in 2016, Republican Donald Trump has put Minnesota in play against Democrat Hillary Clinton. Two recent polls indicate the state could prove to be a sleeper, despite Mrs. Clinton’s built-in partisan advantage and the fact Mr. Trump hasn’t held a single campaign event there the entire campaign season.

However, regardless of the polls, which we’ll discuss below, demographic voting patterns identified in the PPD U.S. Presidential Election Daily Tracking Poll and several turnout projections on the PPD 2016 Presidential Election Projection Model definitively suggest the state could flip in 2016.

Let’s begin with some historical perspective and data–specifically, it’s voting behavior and underlaying ideology.

The North Star State has only voted for the Republican candidate 3 times since 1932 and hasn’t since 1976, even bucking the entire country in 1984. It stood alone as the only state to back Democratic candidate Walter Mondale, a native Minnesotan, albeit by the slimmest of margins. Former Vice President Mondale carried the state with 49.72%, or 1,036,364 votes, to 49.54%, or 1,032,603 votes for President Ronald Reagan.

In 2000, Democratic Vice President Al Gore received 47.91%, or 1,168,266 votes, while then-Gov. George W. Bush received 45.50%, or 1,109,659 votes. Worth noting, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader took 5.20%, or 126,696 votes, more than the 2% Dr. Jill Stein (Green) is receiving in the polls and roughly the same as Libertarian Party candidate Gov. Gary Johnson is getting in the polls.

In 2004, without a third-party candidate on the ballot, President Bush ran competitive in the state against then-Sen. John Kerry, taking 47.61%, or 1,346,695 votes. Mr. Kerry took 51.09%, or 1,445,014 votes.

Only President Barack Obama blew out his Republican rivals, beginning with Sen. John McCain in 2008. He defeated the Arizona senator with 54.06%, or 1,573,354 votes, to 43.82%, or 1,275,409 votes. In 2012, Mr. Obama carried the state with a slightly smaller margin of 52.65%, or 1,546,167 votes, to 44.96%, or 1,320,225 votes.

So, why then do we feel, regardless of the recent polling data supporting our analysis, Mr. Trump can carry the state?

Populism. Plain and simple, coupled with enthusiasm and the presence of third-party candidates on the ballot.

In the state of Minnesota, populism has long been a predominant political force. The success of the state’s political parties depended upon it and the presidential voting preference shows this trend going back to 1860. Whether some in the Republican Party are willing to admit or are even aware of the truth, American populism took root in the GOP and President Reagan and President Bush both had populist undertones in their campaign’s economic messages.

Populism is at the heart of Mr. Trump’s economic and anti-establishment message. It’s also the significant enthusiasm gap between Mr. Trump’s very excited supporters and Mrs. Clinton’s very depressed voters that could result in a big upset, despite what the polls show ahead of the election. The state, which consistently boasts higher voter turnout than the national average, is also known for its more-than-average politically active citizenry and the strength of political movements could be exacerbated by it.

Now, not including the expanded Minnesota subsample taken from the PPD U.S. Presidential Election Daily Tracking Poll, a Gravis Marketing Poll released on Monday finds the race tied at 42% and another recent poll from SurveyUSA finds a six-point lead for Mrs. Clinton.

“Minnesota is in play,” Larry Jacobs of the University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute, told Patch. “Trump is only six or seven points behind and has not campaigned actively in Minnesota, whereas Democrats are counting on Minnesota and have actually put some money in. So, I think these are surprising results.”

Minnesota Population of Color by Racial and Ethnic Group. (Source: Minnesota Compass)

Minnesota Population of Color by Racial and Ethnic Group. (Source: Minnesota Compass)

We agree with the former argument, but aren’t particularly surprised by the other pollsters’ results. The PPD U.S. Presidential Election Daily Tracking Poll conducted an expanded subsample of 771 likely voters in Minnesota from September 21 to September 23, which was weighted to reflect the above shift in demographics. It found Mrs. Clinton leading Mr. Trump by just 2 points, 44% to 42%, with Gov. Gary Johnson getting 5% and Dr. Jill Stein 2%.

Seven percent (7%) remain undecided, slightly higher than the national average.

Further, Mr. Trump’s voters were far more loyal and committed (89%) than Mrs. Clinton’s voters (77%), presenting a real challenge even if they switch to third-party candidates. We are watching the state closely, will poll it nearly every week and adjust the state’s rating on the 2016 Presidential Election Projection Model when new data warrant a decision to do so.

Until then, the once-deep blue state of Minnesota will remain a BATTLEGROUND.

While most election forecasters did not consider

Economy

Hillary Clinton speaks at the first presidential debate at Hofstra University on September 26, 2016.

Democrat
Hillary Clinton speaks at the first presidential debate at Hofstra University on September 26, 2016.

Democrat Hillary Clinton is receiving pushback for claiming at the first presidential debate at Hofstra University on Monday that “independent” analysts favor her economic plan over the one proposed by her Republican rival Donald Trump. During the “Achieving Prosperity” segment of debate, Mrs. Clinton admitted she wanted to raise taxes and regulations across the board, which Mr. Trump said would “regulate businesses out of existence.”

“There’s a night-and-day difference between the two candidates on economic policy,” said Club for Growth PAC President David McIntosh. “Donald Trump wants to cut taxes and slash unnecessary regulations, while Hillary Clinton will raise taxes and continue the Washington regulatory industry. Clinton’s plan is a job-crushing assault on economic growth.

The Club for Growth, which promotes economic prosperity and liberty, disputes the review cited by Mrs. Clinton during the debate, which in fact is just an article by an ally at The Washington Post.

“Her tired old ideas of class envy and government handouts will continue to punish middle-class working families,” Mr. McIntosh added.

And Mr. McIntosh isn’t alone.

The Tax Foundation recently released a study examining the 10-year impact of the candidates’ plans on gross domestic product, capital investment, wages, jobs and tax revenue. On nearly every single indicator, Mr. Trump’s tax plan will have a far more beneficial impact on the economy than Mrs. Clinton’s, which actually does damage to the U.S. economy over 10 years. However, despite what the presumptive Republican nominee has claimed, neither static nor dynamic scoring prevents billions of dollars in deficits as a result of Mr. Trump’s plan.

To be fair, Mr. Trump does have plans to offset the budget shortfall by reforming foreign interventions and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also called the North Atlantic Alliance or NATO. He also has plans to save money on health care and budgetary reform, which was not scored by the Tax Foundation.

[brid video=”65949″ player=”2077″ title=”Trump to Clinton “You are Going to Regulate Businesses Out of Existence””]

Despite Hillary Clinton's claims during the debate,

Opinion

Big-Pharma-Getty-Images

Photo: Getty Images

California may soon drive a hole through Washington’s tolerance for — and protection of — price gouging on drugs. A measure on the November ballot, Proposition 61, would bar state agencies from paying more for prescription drugs than the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs does.

Congress generally prohibits the U.S. government from negotiating prescription drug prices. The VA is an exception. Federal law ensures that it obtains a discount of at least 24 percent off a drug’s list price.

Other countries don’t let drugmakers abuse their citizenry with rapacious pricing. But the U.S. Congress does the drug industry’s bidding, defending business practices that bilk patients, taxpayers and anyone who buys health coverage.

That’s why Mylan got away with hiking the EpiPen price (for Americans) by 500 percent. It’s how Turing Pharmaceuticals could raise the price of a drug used by AIDS patients by some 5,000 percent.

California seems to be fighting back. As a buyer of drugs for about 4.5 million public workers, university employees and others, the state has market muscle. It can refuse to pay indecent price markups. (Prop 61 would not affect Californians on private plans.)

The pharmaceutical industry has amassed $100 million to defeat the measure. Practiced in the art of extortionate pricing, drug companies know how to wield a threat: They could refuse to sell their products to the state of California, depriving millions of needed medications.

But would that happen? I asked economist Uwe Reinhardt, the Princeton expert on health care. He thinks it unlikely.

As long as drug companies can make a profit on an already developed drug, they’re going to sell it. After all, they still make money on the drugs they sell to Canada and Europe at considerably lower prices. Other countries confront drug companies with take-it-or-leave-it propositions, and the companies relent.

We Americans, Reinhardt says, “seem haunted by the theory that unless we allow drug companies to charge us whatever they wish for a pill, innovation will stop. And we fall for that story.”

If Prop 61 became a reality, other state governments would not sit back and continue paying prices well above those charged California. So we have to consider the other scenario — that the drug companies decline to sell to California at VA prices. They would give up a large chunk of the California market but keep the price game going in the rest of the country.

Reinhardt doubts they would play this kind of hardball. Abandoning an entire market would destroy any goodwill they have with doctors and patients. The value of their company name, an intangible asset, could fall, spilling over into other things they sell. Thus, a drug company board member might think twice before authorizing that level of aggression.

Polls find 66 percent of California voters in favor of Prop 61. AARP and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation support the measure. Opponents include some patient advocate groups, fearing that the state’s refusal to pay up might limit their access to drugs. The industry, of course, is fanning those fears.

America’s drug pricing scandal reflects an odd imbalance in what we expect of fellow citizens. Our soldiers risk life and limb fighting terrorist regimes, but we seem unable to ask drug company executives to trim a few million off their exorbitant compensation for the good of the country.

Reinhardt asks, “Is it really essential to compensate the top five layers of executives of drug companies with boats and planes and villas in Tuscany to get these folks to innovate in drug therapy?” The answer is no.

It may take America’s innovator, California, to put an end to the drug pricing scam. Californians, do your duty.

A measure on the November ballot, Proposition

Opinion

Demonstrators protest Tuesday's fatal police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, N.C. on Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2016. Protesters rushed police in riot gear at a downtown Charlotte hotel and officers have fired tear gas to disperse the crowd. At least one person was injured in the confrontation, though it wasn't immediately clear how. Firefighters rushed in to pull the man to a waiting ambulance. (Photo: AP/Associated Press)

Demonstrators protest Tuesday’s fatal police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, N.C. on Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2016. Protesters rushed police in riot gear at a downtown Charlotte hotel and officers have fired tear gas to disperse the crowd. At least one person was injured in the confrontation, though it wasn’t immediately clear how. Firefighters rushed in to pull the man to a waiting ambulance. (Photo: AP/Associated Press)

Celebrating the racial diversity of the Charlotte protesters last week, William Barber II, chairman of the North Carolina NAACP, proudly proclaimed, “This is what democracy looks like.”

Well, if Barber is right, so, too, was John Adams, who warned us that “democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Consider what the protesters, who, exults Barber, “show us a way forward to peace and justice,” accomplished.

In the first two nights of rioting, the mob injured a dozen cops, beat white people, smashed and looted stores, blocked traffic, shut down interstate highways, got one person shot and killed, and forced the call-up of state troopers and National Guard to rescue an embattled Charlotte police force.

This was mobocracy, a criminal takeover of Charlotte’s downtown by misfits hurling racist and obscene insults and epithets not only at the cops but also at bystanders and reporters sent to cover their antics.

We have seen Charlotte before. It was a rerun of Ferguson, Baltimore and Manhattan, after mobs in those cities concluded that innocent black men had been deliberately killed by “racist white cops.”

Yet, one week later, what do we know of the precipitating event in Charlotte?

Keith Scott, 43-year-old African-American father of seven, was shot and killed not by a white cop, but by a black cop who shouted to him, along with others, almost 10 times — “Drop the gun!”

An ex-con whose convictions included assault with a deadly weapon, Scott was wearing an ankle holster and carrying a handgun.

Charlotte Police Chief Kerr Putney, also black, after viewing video from a dash-cam and a body-cam of the officers involved, recommended against filing any charges.

The chief concedes that he cannot, from the video footage, see a gun in Scott’s hands at the time he was shot.

But how is the legitimate investigation of the death of Keith Scott advanced by a mob? And if mass civil disobedience is what “democracy looks like” in 2016, why are we surprised that other nations look less and less to American democracy as their model?

Moreover, if these repeated reversions of the enraged to street action become the new normal, what do they portend for the country?

Blanket cable news coverage of the Ferguson riots split us along racial lines. But what purpose did they serve? Even Eric Holder’s Justice Department concluded that officer Darren Wilson should not be charged in the shooting death of Michael Brown, who tried to grab his gun.

A year ago, Baltimore divided the nation.

Six Baltimore cops, three of them black, were charged in an alleged “rough ride” in a police van that killed 25-year-old Freddie Gray.

This year, a black judge acquitted three of the cops in three trials, and all charges against the rest were dropped.

No evidence was produced that the cops had intended to injure Gray.

In New York, the five cops who piled on Eric Garner to subdue him never intended to injure him, said a grand jury. Well over 300 pounds, Garner suffered from obesity, diabetes, asthma and hypertension, and died, not of a police chokehold, but a heart attack.

Yes, there have been incidents when cops made mistakes and cases where cops acted criminally. In Tulsa last week, after a white cop shot and killed an unarmed black man who appeared to offer no threat, she was charged with first-degree manslaughter. Is not this, rather than marching mobs, the way to handle such incidents?

Inevitably, given the violent crime in our cities — 540 murders this year in Chicago and 3,000 shootings — white and black cops are going to be confronting white and black suspects. Inevitably, some of these collisions are going to result in police shootings and black deaths.

While most of those police decisions to shoot are going to be seen in retrospect as justified, some will not be unjustified, and some will be malicious.

The latter will be rare, but they are going to happen.

But in a nation of 320 million, if every collision between white cops and black men resulting in the death of a suspect is to be seen as legitimate grounds for mob action like Charlotte, we will never know racial peace.

Like moths to a flame, TV cameras are attracted to conflict, especially racial conflict. Networks and TV stations reward with airtime the most incendiary of racial charges. Thus, the news going out to homes and bars will continue to polarize us along racial lines.

And when the rage of one side and the disgust of the other dissipate, some new incident, between white cops and black men, will occur, and will be recorded, and rushed onto the air.

The street action in Ferguson, Baltimore and Charlotte may be what “democracy looks like” to Barber’s NAACP. But to most Americans, it looks like a formula for endless racial conflict — and a touch of fascism in the night.

The street action in Ferguson, Baltimore and

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

Subscribe