Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Wednesday, February 12, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 523)
Economy

Midwest-Auto-manufacturing-factory

Auto manufacturing plant and worker in Midwest. (Photo: Reuters)

The MNI Chicago Business Barometer, the Institute for Supply Management’s gauge of factory activity in the Midwest region fell to 55.8 in July. down from 56.8 the month prior. Wall Street expected a larger decline to a reading of 54.0.

Readings above 50 point to expansion, while those below indicate contraction.

“Demand and output softened somewhat in July following a solid showing in June but still outperformed the very weak results seen earlier in the year,” said Lorena Castellanos, senior economist at MNI Indicators. “On the upside, it was the first time since January 2015 that all five Barometer components were above 50.

Employment index moved above 50 to the highest since March 2016 after three months in contraction that had left the indicator at the lowest since November 2009. Following strong gains in the previous month, Production, New Orders and Order Backlogs declined somewhat in July, but remained above May’s levels, when they all fell into contraction territory

“Although it’s still relatively weak, should July’s increase hold then it could be read as a tentative sign of growing business confidence about economic growth ahead,” Castellanos added.

The MNI Chicago Business Barometer, the Institute

Economy

Gross-Domestic-Product-GDP-Reuters

File photo: Shipping cranes and containers at a U.S. port representing exports and imports factored in overall gross domestic product, or GDP. (Photo: REUTERS)

The first reading on second-quarter gross domestic product (GDP) showed the U.S. economy grew at an anemic annualized pace of 1.2%, badly missing the forecast. The preliminary reading is up from the first-quarter’s revised abysmal rate of 0.8%, according to the Commerce Department.

Economists had forecast an increase to a growth rate of 2.6% for the world’s biggest economy, but inventories fell for the first time since 2011.

Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of all U.S. economic activity, was responsible for almost all of the rebound in GDP growth in the second quarter. Consumer spending increased by 4.2%, the fastest pace since the fourth quarter of 2014.

Business inventories fell by $8.1 billion in the second quarter, marking the first decline since the third quarter of 2011. They are down from a $40.7 billion increase in the first quarter, and as a result, inventory investment sliced 1.16% from GDP growth in the last quarter. It was the fourth straight quarter that inventories weighed on output.

However, during the second quarter, trade actually added 0.23% to GDP growth, as opposed to the typical trend of reducing it. Business spending on equipment contracted for a third consecutive quarter, the longest stretch since the 2007-2009 recession, though the pace of decline slowed. Business spending on equipment declined by 3.5% after falling 9.5% in the first quarter.

The first reading on second-quarter gross domestic

Politics

Hillary Clinton addresses the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

Hillary Clinton addresses the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

With “boundless confidence and determination,” Hillary Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination amid protests inside and outside the convention. “And so it is with humility, determination and boundless confidence in America’s promise — that I accept your nomination for President of the United States,” she said.

Protesters and delegates began walking out, with WikiLeaks banners held up and heckles coming from near the California delegation.

While her supporters were drowning out the remaining anti-Hillary delegates who didn’t have their credential revoked by the DNC with chants of “Hillary,” the first woman ever to secure a major party’s nomination for president still hasn’t won over a large wing of her party amid an embarrassing scandal that caused a political uproar ahead of the convention in Philadelphia.

“I get it. Some people just don’t know what to make of me,” she said to an instant backlash of boos and heckles.

Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state, even tried to thank Sen. Bernie Sanders and call for unity from his supporters.

“Bernie, your campaign inspired millions of Americans, particularly the young people who threw their hearts and souls into our primary. You’ve put economic and social justice issues front and center, where they belong,” she said. “And to all of your supporters here and around the country: I want you to know, I’ve heard you. Your cause is our cause.”

However, it was those very supporters who were mocked and criticized by top officials in emails leaked by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. The group promises more to come, but Mrs. Clinton tried to turn the night’s attention to her Republican rival Donald Trump.

“Imagine him in the Oval Office facing a real crisis. A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons,” she said. “America’s strength doesn’t come from lashing out.”

The speech was also heavy on platitudes, not policy.

“Tonight, we’ve reached a milestone in our nation’s march toward a more perfect union: the first time that a major party has nominated a woman for President. Standing here as my mother’s daughter, and my daughter’s mother, I’m so happy this day has come. Happy for grandmothers and little girls and everyone in between,” she said. “Happy for boys and men, too – because when any barrier falls in America, for anyone, it clears the way for everyone. After all, when there are no ceilings, the sky’s the limit.”

Meanwhile, outside the Wells Fargo Center, Haitians took to the streets to protest Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation’s actions in the wake of the 2010 cataclysmic earthquake in their nation.

“The main message is that Hillary Clinton belongs in jail,” one protester said. “We believe that the world should know about the crimes the Clinton family has committed against the country of Haiti–the money they have stolen from the earthquake victims. And we believe that were this to be anyone else, they’d be in jail right now.”

“She’s not in jail because she’s being protected by the Obama administration, the Justice Department, State Department,” the man said.

[brid video=”56497″ player=”2077″ title=”Haitian Immigrants at DNC “Wake Up! Hillary Belongs in Jail!””]

With "boundless confidence and determination," Hillary Clinton

Elections

[brid video=”56462″ player=”2077″ title=”Defeat Crooked Hillary PAC “Bernie Never Had a Chance””]

A new ad released by Defeat Crooked Hillary PAC is targeting supporters of Bernie Sanders in the wake of the WikiLeaks DNC email scandal. The anti-secrecy group released some 20,000 hacked emails exposing an anti-Sanders bias and “mainstream” media corruption that led to the ouster of Democratic National Committee(DNC) chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“Bernie never had a chance,” it says.

The ad, with aa $300-$400K budget, will run in 8 swing states and reiterates that Mrs. Clinton rewarded Wasserman Schultz with a cushy new job on her campaign. Wasserman Schultz was given the role of DNC chair in exchange for Mrs. Clinton’s enthusiastic excitement for then-Sen. Barack Obama after a 2008 bruising primary.

Incredibly, Donna Brazile, a longtime ally of the Clintons, was made the new interim chair of the DNC. The WikiLeaks emails also showed Brazile was in the tank for Clinton, showed her bias against Bernie Sanders and even called him “stupid” threatening to curse him out.

“Hillary just doesn’t get it,” the narrator says.

While Sen. Sanders, himself, fell on his sword, suspended the roll call vote and moved to nominate Mrs. Clinton by acclamation at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, a very significant number of his supporters remain unpersuadable. Recent polls show upwards of 25% still say they will vote for Donald Trump and roughly half will not vote for Mrs. Clinton, either way.

The DNC revoked the convention credentials for scores of Sanders supporters and delegates for the remaining two days of the convention after both he and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., darlings of the left, were booed in their speeches when mentioning the Democratic nominee’s name. Prior to former President Bill Clinton’s speech on Tuesday, Sanders supporters staged a mass walk-out.

Mr. Trump has now retaken the lead on the PPD average of national polls. Thus far, there has been little to no movement in Mrs. Clinton’s direction during interviews conducted during the first three days of the Democratic National Convention.

A new ad released by Defeat Crooked

Economy

National-and-State-Mortgage-Risk-Indices

National and State Mortgage Risk Indices are tracked and released by AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk. (Photo: Reuters)

The National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) showed purchase loan volume surged 10% in the month of June on a year-over-year basis. The June NMRI, which is being driven largely by looser, riskier lending standards, demonstrates another month of increased mortgage risk that is getting little attention by the mainstream analysts.

“As a result of loose lending and accommodative monetary policy, the nominal house price-to-income ratio stands at 3.34, up 10% since the early-2012 trough, thus retracing about a third of drop from the 2006 peak to the 2012 trough,” said Edward Pinto, co-director of the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI’s) International Center on Housing Risk. Mr. Pinto is also a former executive vice president and chief credit officer for Fannie Mae.

The NMRI measures how government-guaranteed loans with a first payment date in a given month would perform if subjected to the same stress as in the financial crisis that began in 2007. It is similar to stress tests routinely performed by the Federal Reserve on the nation’s big banks. An NMRI value of 10% for a given set of loans suggests that 10% of those loans would be expected to default in a severe stress event. It is based on the actual performance of loans with the same risk characteristics after the financial crisis.

The NMRI for Agency purchase loans stood at 12.7% in June, up 0.2 percentage point from a year earlier and 1.0 percentage point from June 2014. The Agency purchase NMRI has increased year-over-year in every month since January 2014. The NMRI is published monthly utilizing a nearly complete census of loan-level data for loans guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA, and Rural Housing. These same Agency data are also used to track loan volume and other characteristics.

“An increasing share of home buyers are taking out mortgages with burdensome monthly payments,” said Stephen Oliner, co-director of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk and senior fellow at UCLA’s Ziman Center for Real Estate. “Indeed, more than a quarter of recent government-guaranteed home purchase loans had a debt-to-income ratio that exceeded the limit set by the Qualified Mortgage rules in the wake of the financial crisis.”

In contrast to purchase loans, the NMRI for Agency refinance mortgages edged lower on net over the past year. The NMRI for these loans stood at 11.2% in June, down from 11.4% a year earlier. Lower risk borrowers taking advantage of declining mortgage rates are holding down the refinance NMRI, overall.

The NMRI for the composite of Agency purchase and refinance loans stood at 12.0% in June, up from 11.9% a year earlier, and comes as the housing lobby (National Association of Realtors) releases their indices for the month. Refinance increases were fueled by the increase in the NMRI for purchase loans.

With the addition of the data for June 2016, the NMRI covers nearly 21.3 million Agency loans dating back to November 2012, comprised of nearly 9.5 million Agency purchase loans and about 11.8 million Agency refinance loans. The NMRI is published for purchase loans (with separate indices for first-time and repeat buyers), refinance loans (with separate indices for no-cash-out and cash-out refinance loans), and the composite of purchase and refinance loans.

The National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) found

Policy

Democratic President Barack Obama, left, embraces Hillary Clinton, right, after speaking to the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Arena in Philadelphia. (Photo: AP)

Democratic President Barack Obama, left, embraces Hillary Clinton, right, after speaking to the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Arena in Philadelphia. (Photo: AP)

It’s very risky to trust the promises made by politicians. But at least there’s a potential downside when they break their word. President George H.W. Bush lost the 1992 election, for instances, after violating his read-my-lips, no-tax-hike promise.

So I think it’s useful to get politicians to explicitly commit to good policies, such as the no-tax-increase pledge.

But what about getting language in a party platform? Is that a vehicle for getting good policy, or at least is it a way of blocking bad policy?

For the most part, I don’t think party platforms bind politicians or constrain their behavior. To be sure, I’m happy when platforms embrace policies that I like, but I’m not foolish enough to think that this automatically will translate into better policy after politicians get elected.

For the most part, platforms are a way for politicians to appease the more philosophically inclined people in their parties. So the Democratic platform is generally farther to the left than Democratic politicians and the GOP platform is generally farther to the right than Republican politicians.

With these caveats taken care of, let’s review the proposals and policies in the Democratic platform (I’ll assess the Republican platform tomorrow). I’ve excerpted the items that are noteworthy and I follow each item with a brief observation.

Let’s get started.

Democrats will expand Social Security…[and] will achieve this goal by taxing some of the income of people above $250,000.

This is like stepping on the accelerator while approaching a cliff. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the program’s unfunded liability is a staggering $37 trillion, yet Hillary and her friends want even more spending. And they want to compound the damage with a huge tax increase on investors, entrepreneurs and small-business owners.

Democrats will also create an independent, national infrastructure bank.

This is a recipe for cronyism that will further expand the federal government’s role into an area that should be reserved for states, local governments, and the private sector.

Democrats will defend the Export-Import Bank.

Bernie Sanders was good on this issue, so this platform language means Hillary Clinton’s support for corporate welfare prevailed.

Democrats will provide direct federal funding for a range of local programs that will put young people to work and create new career opportunities.

Since job-training programs have a long track-record of failure, too bad they didn’t suggest repealing job-killing minimum-wage laws.

Democrats will not hesitate to use and expand existing authorities as well as empower regulators to downsize or break apart financial institutions when necessary to protect the public and safeguard financial stability, including new authorities to go after risky shadow-banking activities.

Other than pointing out that big isn’t necessarily bad, I don’t really have any policy reaction. I’m only sharing this blurb since I imagine you’ll also laugh out loud at the platform’s implicit assertion that Hillary Clinton somehow will crack down on her friends and donors at Goldman-Sachs. Yeah, I’m sure that’s high on her list. Right after putting inner-city schoolkids before the teacher unions.

We will ban golden parachutes for those taking government jobs.

Will that rule apply retroactively to Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew?

Democrats will claw back tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, eliminate tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, and crack down on inversions and other methods companies use to dodge their tax responsibilities.

There are no “tax breaks” for companies that invert.

We will end deferrals so that American corporations pay United States taxes immediately on foreign profits and can no longer escape paying their fair share of U.S. taxes by stashing profits abroad.

The “fair share” should be zero for income that is earned (and therefore already subject to tax) in other nations.

We will ensure those at the top contribute to our country’s future by establishing a multimillionaire surtax to ensure millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share.

Even the IRS admits the tax system is very biased against the so-called rich.

…we will shut down the “private tax system” for those at the top, immediately close egregious loopholes like those enjoyed by hedge fund managers, restore fair taxation on multimillion dollar estates, and ensure millionaires can no longer pay a lower rate than their secretaries.

Wow, endorsing higher capital gains taxes, higher death taxes, and dishonest math in one sentence fragment.

We will work to crack down on tax evasion.

Unfortunately, they want higher compliance by expanding the power of the IRS, not by lowering tax rates.

…we will make sure that law-abiding Americans living abroad are not unfairly penalized by finding the right solutions for them to the requirements under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR).

This language is vacuous, but it’s nonetheless noteworthy that even the Democrats feel compelled to say bad things about one of Obama’s worst laws.

Democrats believe it is long past time to close this racial wealth gap. Disparities in wealth cannot be solved by the free market alone, but instead, the federal government must play a role in eliminating systemic barriers to wealth accumulation for different racial groups and improving opportunities for people from all racial and ethnic backgrounds to build wealth.

More vacuous language, though it’s disappointing that the platform doesn’t endorse personal retirement accounts, which would fix one of the ways minorities are hurt by government policy.

We believe that the states should be laboratories of democracy on the issue of marijuana, and those states that want to decriminalize it or provide access to medical marijuana should be able to do so.

Easily the most pro-liberty part of the Democratic platform.

Democrats will develop a national strategy, coordinated across all levels of government, to combat poverty. We will direct more federal resources to lifting up communities that have been left out and left behind.

Anyone think this will work any better than all the other failed anti-poverty schemes from Washington? I didn’t think so.

Democrats will protect proven programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—our nation’s most important anti-hunger program—that help struggling families put food on the table.

The only thing “proven” about the food stamp program is that it’s riddled with fraud and it creates dependency.

We will dramatically increase federal infrastructure funding for our cities.

It’s not the role of the federal government to pave roads and and build bridges and corrupt big-city political machines shouldn’t be offloading their responsibilities onto taxpayers in the rest of the country.

We will continue to support public funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, for the National Endowment for the Humanities, and for programs providing art and music education in primary and secondary schools.

If I want to listen to cowboy poetry, I should pay for it myself.

We believe America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century. We will take bold steps to slash carbon pollution.

Mostly vacuous rhetoric, but it could lead to “bold steps” to undermine prosperity.

Democrats believe that carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities, and to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and help meet our climate goals.

You don’t have to read between the lines to recognize that “should be priced” is DC-speak for a big energy tax.

All corporations owe it to their shareholders to fully analyze and disclose the risks they face, including climate risk. Those who fail to do so should be held accountable. Democrats also respectfully request the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies accused of misleading shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change.

This is probably the most reprehensible part of the Democratic platform. America is not a banana republic and people shouldn’t be attacked with “lawfare” for disagreeing with the political establishment.

Democrats are unified in their strong belief that every student should be able to go to college debt-free, and working families should not have to pay any tuition to go to public colleges and universities.

A plan that unambiguously will increase the cost of college.

Democrats believe that health care is a right, not a privilege, and our health care system should put people before profits. …Americans should be able to access public coverage through a public option, and those over 55 should be able to opt in to Medicare.

For those who think the Obamacare boondoggle didn’t go far enough.

Democrats will fight any attempts by Republicans in Congress to privatize, voucherize, or “phase out” Medicare as we know it. And we will oppose Republican plans to slash funding and block grant Medicaid and SNAP.

Let’s bury our heads in the sand and pretend there’s no entitlement crisis.

Democrats believe that global institutions—most prominently the United Nations—and multilateral organizations have a powerful role to play

A powerful role is not the same as a productive role or positive role. Though the United Nations is mostly feckless. The real damage is caused by the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

I could analyze additional planks, but there’s a limit to have much statist claptrap I can endure.

If I had to give a grade to the Democratic platform, it would be “L” for leftist. Just like the Party’s nominee.

CATO economist Daniel Mitchell reviews the proposals

Politics

Democratic President Barack Obama, left, embraces Hillary Clinton, right, after speaking to the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Arena in Philadelphia. (Photo: FOX)

Democratic President Barack Obama, left, embraces Hillary Clinton, right, after speaking to the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Arena in Philadelphia. (Photo: FOX)

President Barack Obama took tot he stage Wednesday night to return the favor to the Clintons, who helped him get elected twice. The Democratic president tried to thread the needle between understanding Americans are still hurting and touting his record as a two-term.

It was a difficult job, but the content of the Obama speech in Philadelphia was both unprecedented and telling. All three speakers–Vice President Joe Biden, VP nominee Sen. Tim Kaine and President Obama–all went on the attack against Republican nominee Donald Trump, with the latter saying he is only offering “slogans” and “fear.” Never before has a sitting U.S. president attacked the other party’s nominee on the level Mr. Obama did in his speech, revealing that the man he once mocked is now being thought of as a serious threat.

In fact, People’s Pundit Daily confirmed and reported on Wednesday that the president has asked his staff to clear his schedule in the month of October so that he could campaign for Mrs. Clinton, non-stop. The party will also dispatch Mr. Biden to his native state of Pennsylvania to wrest the lead back from Mr. Trump, who leads in internal polls in a state Republicans haven’t carried since 1988.

To be clear, Mr. Obama gave a very impressive speech, as usual. But his words and their actions confirm to me what I’m seeing in the polling numbers; Trump’s lead over Clinton is real and they’re very concerned.

It was a difficult job, but the

Economy

jobs-fair-weekly-jobs-report

An unemployed American speaks to a recruiter at a jobs fair. (Photo: Mark Ralston AFP/Getty)

The Labor Department said weekly jobless claims rose by 14,000 to 266,000 for the week ending July 26, higher than the forecast for 260,000. The prior week was revised lower by 1,000 to 252,000.

The four-week moving average–which irons-out week-to-week volatility–was 256,500, a decrease of 1,000 from the previous week’s revised average. The previous four-week’s average was revised down by 250 from 257,750 to 257,500.

No state was triggered “on” the Extended Benefits program during the week ending July 9 and a Labor Department analyst said there were no special factors impacting this week’s report on initial claims, which marks 73 consecutive weeks of initial claims below 300,000. While it’s the longest streak since 1973, due to long-term unemployment and weak labor force participation, the pool of eligible applicants for unemployment insurance is the smallest ever since the same period.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending July 9 were in Puerto Rico (3.3), Alaska (2.8), New Jersey (2.8), Connecticut (2.7), Pennsylvania (2.5), West Virginia (2.5), Rhode Island (2.3), Wyoming (2.3), California (2.2), and Illinois (2.0).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending July 16 were in California (+4,941), Georgia (+4,554), Alabama (+2,851), Oregon (+2,722), and Texas (+1,408), while the largest decreases were in New York (-12,012), Michigan (-9,419), Missouri (-4,432), Pennsylvania (-3,647), and Ohio (-2,550).

The Labor Department said weekly jobless claims

Opinion

Bernie Sanders stands at the podium on stage during a walk through before the start of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 25, 2016.

Bernie Sanders stands at the podium on stage during a walk through before the start of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 25, 2016.

One hesitates to discuss the small group of Bernie Sanders followers throwing tantrums at the Democratic convention. Some 90 percent of Sanders backers say they’ve already moved their support to Hillary Clinton.

But when a tiny number — some with duct tape on their mouths saying “silenced” — marched out of the hall and straight into the media tent, the “journalists” pounded prose on “sharp divisions” in the party.

The unhappy few had already booed at Sanders himself. They heckled the progressive warrior Elizabeth Warren. Sanders’ other supporters rolled their eyes at the histrionics, but what could they do?

When Sanders finally offered total support for Clinton, he showed himself to be a giant political leader. That he did so after an email leak confirming that the Democratic National Committee had tilted against his candidacy made him taller still.

Sanders had already pushed the Democratic Party to adopt much of his program, demonstrating a skill at negotiating many of us doubted he had. In sum, Sanders deserved the adulation that friends and former rivals poured on him at the convention.

So this was a heck of a time for a handful of acolytes to grab at his spotlight, some parroting the imbecilities of the Trump campaign. To borrow from Dante’s “Inferno,” one should not reflect on such people but take a look and pass them by.

A good restaurant knows that there are certain customers it has to throw out. They’re too disruptive. They give the place a bad reputation and scare off others.

Sanders himself gets some blame for having fed his following a constant diet of grievance and belief that the electoral process had been “rigged” against them. The nominating race was lumpy all around. The DNC may have put a thumb on the scale for Clinton, but she was subject to unfairness, as well, in the coverage of the campaigns and the undemocratic nature of the caucuses that Sanders won.

I wasn’t a great fan of Sanders’. He had a reputation for not working well with others, and I distrust populist campaigns centered on a charismatic figure. But I always admired Sanders for his consistency, his obvious love for country and many of his ideas.

So it was painful to watch Sanders being treated so disrespectfully by people he had led to the portals of power. And at his finest hour, too.

A few fancied out loud that they could run the Bernie revolution without Bernie, which is kind of laughable. With Sanders would go the cameras and the attention, leaving behind a skeleton crew of exhibitionists.

That said, a lasting Sanders revolution may be in the making by others. Sophisticated backers are now recruiting like-minded candidates for lower office, building a progressive power base and expanded leadership. (A slip in the suggestion box reads, Call this a “movement” rather than a “revolution.”)

As Sanders faced hostile members of his California delegation, he laid down the stakes in no uncertain terms. “It is easy to boo, but it is harder to look your kids in the face who would be living under a Donald Trump presidency,” he said. “Trump is the worst candidate for president in the modern history of this country.”

A California Democratic Party official wisely advised against self-pity. “You fought and you won a seat at the table,” Daraka Larimore-Hall said. “We have to act like we have that seat … and stop acting like we’ve been shut out.”

Just a gentle reminder here: Clinton won the California primary by over 400,000 votes, and Sanders got these followers excellent seats at the table. The revolution, for the time being, is still his.

One hesitates to discuss the small group

Opinion

This summer, we have all witnessed the heavy hand of government intervening in the freedom of speech, as the behavior of the Secret Service at both the Republican convention in Cleveland and the Democratic convention in Philadelphia was troubling and unconstitutional.

Though the First Amendment was originally written only to restrain Congress (“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”), it is now uniformly interpreted to restrict all government in America from abridging the freedom of speech.

The reason this freedom is referred to as “the” freedom of speech is to reflect the belief of the Framers that the right to speak freely is pre-political. Stated differently, the freedom of speech is an integral aspect of our humanity. The government does not grant the freedom of speech; it is prohibited from interfering with it.

This is known as a negative right, in the sense that government is negated from interfering with a personal natural right. A natural right is one whose exercise does not require a government permission slip. Speech is the classic example.

The reasons for this are numerous, and not the least of them are our natural inclinations to think as we wish and to say what we think in pursuit of happiness and personal fulfillment. The practical reasons for this right are the needs of an informed electorate to challenge the government and demand transparency and accountability.

How did this play out during the hot weeks in Cleveland and Philadelphia? Not well.

Though the political parties are private entities with their own rules, they have invited their members and supporters to these quadrennial conventions for the purpose of engaging in public political conversations.

Yet if the Republicans wanted only pro-Trump sentiments to be expressed in the hall in Cleveland and if the Democrats wanted only pro-Clinton sentiments to be expressed in the hall in Philadelphia, since neither entity is the government, both are free to abridge the freedom of speech without legal consequences.

The consequences of such abridgments would presumably be political; those whose speech is silenced and those who oppose silencing public political speech would cast their votes against the silencers.

Yet this summer, the heavy hand of government was involved in silencing speech.

Here is the back story.

Because both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are entitled to Secret Service protection by virtue of a federal statute, the Secret Service either offered or demanded that it be the lead law enforcement agency providing general security — not just to Trump and Clinton but for everyone — at the conventions. In both cities, local officials went along with this.

The freedom of speech issues arose when the leadership of both conventions got so cozy with the Secret Service that they began using the federal agency as if it were private security, and they did so in such a manner as to preclude judicial intervention in aid of the freedom of speech.

Thus, when the Republican leadership wanted to quell a “Never Trump” boomlet on the convention floor, it had the Secret Service remove all reporters and producers — including some of my Fox News colleagues — from the floor. And when the Democratic leadership wanted to silence a pro-Bernie Sanders onslaught on the convention floor, it had the Secret Service confiscate Sanders placards from delegates on the floor.

The government removal of the press by command of the Republicans and the government removal of Sanders placards by command of the Democrats constitute not only an unheard-of commandeering of the government’s coercive powers for a private purpose but also the government’s abridging the freedom of speech. And all this was done quickly and without notice — and without an opportunity for redress to the courts.

The first duty of government is to preserve life, liberty and property. It is a strange and dangerous government that stifles freedom for some fleeting private purpose. It is equally strange that a freedom-loving people would tolerate this.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment and its underlying values is to encourage open, wide, robust, unbridled debate about the policies and the personnel of the government. The prevailing judicial interpretations of these values quite properly keep the government out of the business of assessing the value and propriety of public political speech.

The First Amendment demands that the test for acceptance or rejection of speech in the marketplace of ideas be made by individuals — uninfluenced, undeterred and unmolested by the government.

When the government stifles free choice in an area such as speech, it is no longer the people’s servant. It has become their master. Do you know anyone outside the government who wants that?

The freedom of speech issues arose when

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