Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Sunday, February 23, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 605)
Policy

fair-tax-rally-dc

Supporters of the fair tax and flat tax model hold a Tax Day rally in Washington D.C. (Photo: AP)

There’s no agreement on the most important variable for state tax competitiveness.

I’m sympathetic to the final option, in part because of my disdain for the income tax. And if an income tax is imposed, I prefer a simple and fair flat tax.

With that in mind, here’s a fascinating infographic I received via email. I don’t know if Reboot Illinois is left wing, right wing, or apolitical, but they did a very good job. I particularly like the map showing zero-income tax states (gray), flat tax states (red), and states with so-called progressive tax schemes (blue).

For what it’s worth, Illinois taxpayers should fight as hard as possible to preserve the state’s flat tax. If the politicians get the power to discriminate among income classes, it will just be a matter of time before all taxpayers are hit by higher rates.

Now let’s shift to the spending side of the fiscal ledger.

Like any good libertarian, I generally focus on the size of government. I compareFrance with Hong Kong and that tells me that big is bad and small is good.

But regardless of whether a government is large or small, it’s desirable if it spends money efficiently and generates some benefit. I shared, for instance, a fascinating study on “public sector efficiency” from the European Central Bank and was not surprised to see that nations with smaller public sectors got much more bang for the buck (with Singapore easily winning the prize for the most efficient government).

So, I was very interested to see that WalletHub put together a report showing each state’s “return on investment” based on how effectively it uses tax monies to achieve desirable outcomes for education, health, safety, economy, and infrastructure, and pollution.

I’m not completely comfortable with the methodology (is it a state government’s fault if the population is more obese and therefore less healthy, for instance, and what about adjusting for demographic factors such as age and race?), but I nonetheless think the study is both useful and interesting.

Here are the best and worst states.

One thing that should stand out is that the best states are dominated by zero-income tax states and flat tax states.

The worst states, by contrast, tend to have punitive tax systems (Alaska is a bit of an outlier because it collects – and squanders – a lot of revenue from oil).

By the way, if you’re a Republican, you can probably give yourself a small pat on the back. The so-called red states do a bit better than the so-called blue states.

P.S. WalletHub put together some fascinating data on which cities get a good return on investment (i.e., bang for the back) for spending on police and education.

CATO economist and senior fellow Dan Mitchell

World

Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson on Monday. (AP Photo/Brynjar Gunnarsson, File)

Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson on Monday. (AP Photo/Brynjar Gunnarsson, File)

Iceland’s Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson has become the first global leader to resign amid a scandal involving mass tax evasion, leaked in documents known as the Panama Papers. Agriculture Minister Sigurdur Ingi Johannsson told Icelandic broadcaster RUV that Gunnlaugsson would step down as leader of the country’s coalition government.

The resignation follows reports that he and his wife set up an offshore company with the help of a Panamanian law firm at the center of the Panama Papers scandal. The company, set up in the British Virgin Islands, may represent a severe conflict of interest with his official role.

Some 11.5 million leaked documents were released over the weekend revealing how and where politicians, businesses and celebrities hide their wealth. The report, which was released by an international coalition of media outlets working with the Washington-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, is based on documents from the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca.

Massack Fonseca is one of the world’s biggest creators of shell companies in the world. The documents implicate Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, the presidents of Argentina and Ukraine, among many others. However, nothing thus far directly ties President Putin to the accounts.

Iceland Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson resigns

Economy

service-sector-hospital-nurse-reuters

Service sector employee, nurse at a hospital. (Photo: REUTERS)

The Non-Manufacturing ISM Report On Business, the Institute for Supply Management’s gauge of U.S. service sector growth, increased to 54.5 in March. The NMI, which is up from 53.4 in February, beat the median economic forecast for a reading of 54.

“According to the NMI, 12 non-manufacturing industries reported growth in March,” said Anthony Nieves, chair of the Institute for Supply Management Non-Manufacturing Business Survey Committee.”The majority of respondents’ comments indicate that business conditions are mostly positive and that the economy is stable and will continue on a course of slow, steady growth.”

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

SERVICE SECTOR INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE IN MARCH

The 12 non-manufacturing industries reporting growth in March — listed in order — are: Educational Services; Information; Wholesale Trade; Finance & Insurance; Health Care & Social Assistance; Retail Trade; Mining; Management of Companies & Support Services; Accommodation & Food Services; Public Administration; Utilities; and Professional, Scientific & Technical Services. The two industries reporting contraction in March are: Arts, Entertainment & Recreation; and Transportation & Warehousing.

ISM® NON-MANUFACTURING SURVEY RESULTS AT A GLANCE
COMPARISON OF ISM® NON-MANUFACTURING AND ISM® MANUFACTURING SURVEYS*
MARCH 2016
Non-Manufacturing Manufacturing
Index Series
Index
Mar		 Series
Index
Feb		 Percent
Point
Change		 Direction Rate
of
Change		 Trend**
(Months)		 Series
Index
Mar		 Series
Index
Feb		 Percent
Point
Change
NMI®/PMI® 54.5 53.4 +1.1 Growing Faster 74 51.8 49.5 +2.3
Business Activity/Production 59.8 57.8 +2.0 Growing Faster 80 55.3 52.8 +2.5
New Orders 56.7 55.5 +1.2 Growing Faster 80 58.3 51.5 +6.8
Employment 50.3 49.7 +0.6 Growing From
Contracting		 1 48.1 48.5 -0.4
Supplier Deliveries 51.0 50.5 +0.5 Slowing Faster 3 50.2 49.7 +0.5
Inventories 52.5 52.5 0.0 Growing Same 12 47.0 45.0 +2.0
Prices 49.1 45.5 +3.6 Decreasing Slower 3 51.5 38.5 +13.0
Backlog of Orders 52.0 52.0 0.0 Growing Same 3 51.0 48.5 +2.5
New Export Orders 58.5 53.5 +5.0 Growing Faster 2 52.0 46.5 +5.5
Imports 53.0 55.5 -2.5 Growing Slower 2 49.5 49.0 +0.5
Inventory Sentiment 62.5 62.0 +0.5 Too High Faster 226 N/A N/A N/A
Customers’ Inventories N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 49.0 47.0 +2.0
Overall Economy Growing Faster 80
Non-Manufacturing Sector Growing Faster 74

* Non-Manufacturing ISM® Report On Business® data is seasonally adjusted for Business Activity, New Orders, Prices and Employment Indexes. Manufacturing ISM® Report On Business® data is seasonally adjusted for New Orders, Production, Employment and Supplier Deliveries.

** Number of months moving in current direction.

The Non-Manufacturing ISM Report On Business, the

Economy

trade-cargo-reuters

A Ferrari cargo crane moves shipping containing on a U.S. trade port. (Photo: Reuters)

The U.S. trade deficit in February widened by 2.6% to $47.6 billion, missing economists’ expectations for the deficit to widen to $46.2 billion. A rebound in exports was erased and offset by an increase in imports, while January’s deficit was revised higher to $45.88 billion.

When adjusted for inflation, the deficit rose to $63.3 billion, the largest since March last year and up from $61.8 billion in January. In February, exports rose 1.6% to $118.6 billion, mark the first time exports increased since September. Overall, exports of goods and services increased 1.0% to $178.1 billion.

The politically-sensitive trade deficit with China also continued to sour more than the median forecast. Imports from China fell 2.7%, but were outpaced by the fall in exports, pushing the U.S.-China trade deficit down 2.8% to $28.1 billion in February.

With data on consumer and business spending poor, the report by the Commerce Department is the latest indication that economic growth remained weak in the first quarter.

The U.S. trade deficit in February widened

Politics

Cruz-Trump-Sanders-Clinton

Election 2016 presidential candidates from left to right: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton. (Photos: AP)

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders couldn’t be more philosophically opposed to each other. But on Tuesday the two very different politicians share a common goal–stop frontrunners Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton in Wisconsin.

Sens. Cruz and Sanders have held leads in The Badger State, according to the average of polls conducted in the past two weeks–the former leads by 3.1 and the latter leads by 1.5%. But their level of support has thinned considerably from the double-digit leads enjoyed last week.

Several things have proved to be effective against Mr. Trump in the state–local talk radio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich among them. Conservative talk radio hosts–including Charlie Sykes, Jeff Wagner of WTMJ, and Mark Belling, Vicki McKenna and Jay Weber of WISN–have been in the tank for Sen. Cruz, which has disproportionately impacted regions of the state that typically hand him large margins of victory. Add Gov. Kasich, who appeals to many of the same voters, and it equals a deficit, something the front-runner himself acknowledged.

“In certain areas — the city areas — I’m not doing well,” Mr. Trump told voters at a rally in Racine. “I’m not doing well because nobody knows my message. They were given misinformation.”

Indeed, Mr. Trump has outperformed in Rust Belt states similiar to Wisconsin, largely a result of his populist message and “fair” trade. But demographically, Wisconsin is somewhere in between Iowa and Michigan and his economic message has struggled to break through amid a series of controversies, some of which were self-inflicted.

That was the case in a recent combative, sandbag interview with Mr. Sykes, a popular conservative talk radio host. Sykes is a leader of the “Stop Trump” movement and lamented how he had “failed to introduce” him to Wisconsin’s “tradition of civility and decency.”

“Can someone win without talk radio?” Mr. Sykes asked during a commercial break from his program. “Yes, theoretically. Except no one has.”

Stephen J. Miller, a senior policy advisor to Mr. Trump on loan from Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, tried to change all that at a rally on Monday. Citing his support for foreign worker visas and international trade deals, Mr. Miller called Cruz “Goldman Sach’s favorite senator” and, essentially, a total fraud.

“I’m going to take just a moment to tell each and every one of you,” he said. “The real truth about Goldman Sachs’ favorite senator, Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz himself is bringing up hit pieces on him. Ted Cruz brought up the Enquirer and then blamed us for that. Ted Cruz is probably going to bring up the D.C. Madam story and blame us for that too.”

“Because he doesn’t want to talk about the issues affecting your life.”

Sen. Cruz repeatedly cited Sen. Sessions on the campaign trail in an attempt to sure up his conservative bona fides on immigration. But in what was a devastating development ahead of crucial Super Tuesday contests in the South, Sen. Sessions endorsed Mr. Trump. The New York businessman went on to win all but one state Sen. Cruz staked his entire campaign strategy on to win the nomination.

“Ted Cruz is a radical Wall Street globalist who will rip the beating heart of manufacturing out of the United States of America,” Mr. Miller added. “Ted Cruz sided with Goldman Sachs and the globalists over the issue of trade. We can not let that happen.”

On Monday, Mr. Trump was confidant and said he might even win Wisconsin, despite the endorsement he got from Gov. Scott Walker. He compared Wisconsin to South Carolina, where popular Republican Gov. Nikki Haley endorsed Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. Mr. Trump won a decisive victory in The Palmetto State, taking all 50 delegates in a proportional allocation.

“It was over. I was going to get killed,” Mr. Trump said. “The governor supported Marco and I said, ‘That’s bad.’ But guess what happened? I won in a landslide. Same thing is going to happen here, I think the same thing.”

“I don’t know, maybe not,” Trump added. “If we do well here folks, it’s over.”

For Sen. Sanders, who pulled off an upset win in Michigan that proved to be the biggest polling blunder since the New Hampshire Democratic Primary in 1984, the campaign is feeling increasingly confident they have overtaken Mrs. Clinton. On Monday, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist promised to rewrite trade deals and oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) at two events with the UAW (United Auto Workers Union) Local 95 in Janesville.

Sen. Sanders has won the last five contests, as well as eight of the previous nine. Yet, he remains the clear underdog for the Democratic nomination.

“If I had a choice I’d rather be Sen. Sanders,” says PPD’s senior analyst Richard Baris. “The polls have been all over the place on the Democratic side and someone is going to be right, someone wrong. For Sen. Cruz, the trend looks pretty clear. Mr. Trump is gaining if not overtaking him.”

The final [content_tooltip id=”38766″] showed the frontrunners surging ahead of their respective challengers. Mr. Trump surged to a 10-point lead over Sen. Cruz and Mrs. Clinton held a statistically insignificant 1-point lead over Sen. Sanders. While those numbers appear to be an outlier at first glance, the trend at least for the Republican primary is clearly moving against Sen. Cruz.

Following the coveted endorsement of Gov. Walker, the Texas senator and Trump’s closest rival held as much as a 10-point lead. But that appears to have been fleeting support.

We will all find out soon.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Vermont Sen.

Opinion

Donald Trump Gives Address On Immigration In Phoenix

PHOENIX, AZ – JULY 11: Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses supporters during a political rally at the Phoenix Convention Center on July 11, 2015 in Phoenix, Arizona. (Photo: Charlie Leight/Getty Images)

Six months ago, I warned that Donald Trump’s strengths could also be the weaknesses that would destroy his campaign. I think we’re beginning to see that play out now.

Trump has repeatedly said he is a counterpuncher — that he won’t initiate attacks against his rivals but if they were to hit him first he would hit back much harder.

He seems to take pride in this, as if it proves his toughness — an essential part of the image he’s cultivated. It’s not just abstract machismo that he sells but muscularity in promoting the policy issues that form the centerpiece of his campaign.

Take, for example, his position on Muslims. By refusing to kowtow to cultural and media pressure to be politically correct, he reinforces his image among his supporters as a strong leader and as an outsider.

The louder the critics’ condemnations the more emboldened he has become and the more entrenched his supporters have become — as if the criticisms are validating rather than disqualifying. Trump’s opponents have been flummoxed throughout, scratching their heads over an inelastic demand among his followers that rivals that of cigarette buyers indifferent to price hikes.

His supporters aren’t only unfazed by his political incorrectness; they also seem to be indifferent to his childish tweets, his personal attacks and his remarkable lack of knowledge and preparation — not to mention vacillation — on the issues.

But has his shtick begun to wear thin? Are people finally saying enough is enough?

I don’t believe that many of his die-hard supporters are going to peel away from him. But I do think his antics have guaranteed that he can’t extend his appeal much beyond his devoted followers.

Indeed, I get the sense that he has reached his peak and is beginning to falter for real this time. Can he wait out the clock and squeak by as the remaining states choose their delegates?

He doesn’t have much choice, because contrary to the opinion of some, Trump is not very adaptable. Rumors were circulating a few weeks ago that his close advisers were leaning on him to act more presidential. But Trump is nothing if not Trumpish, so we shouldn’t be surprised he was not amenable to reining himself in.

He demonstrated his incorrigibility when the super PAC Make America Awesome, which is not even connected to the Ted Cruz campaign, posted on its Facebook page a photo of a nude Melania Trump from a GQ photo shoot she’d done years ago. Liz Mair, the Republican strategist behind the ad, stated that Cruz had nothing to do with it, and she admitted it was aimed directly at voting-age Mormons. Trump, treating the ad as if Cruz had directly ordered it, tweeted that Cruz should be careful or he would “spill the beans” on Cruz’s wife, Heidi. He next shared a photo of an attractive Melania Trump juxtaposed with an unflattering one of Heidi Cruz with this caption: “No need to ‘spill the beans.’ The images are worth a thousand words.”

This was a gratuitously cruel and unwarranted attack, not unlike earlier personal attacks he’d made on other women, including Carly Fiorina. When called on it, Trump’s responses ranged from defending his actions to denying that the photo of Heidi was unattractive.

Then when Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker endorsed Cruz — not couched in an anti-Trump statement as some had urged but said as a full-throated endorsement of Cruz and his conservative credentials — Trump just couldn’t leave it alone. True to form, he attacked the popular governor in his own state for his allegedly poor economic record and even as a guy who doesn’t seem to be an authentic biker.

Whether Trump was trying to be cute and continue the behavior that led to his rise or this was merely his inability to control himself, one can only speculate, but it was most likely a bit of both.

In September, I wrote that Trump should treat his personal characteristics like a minefield and learn how to navigate it without blowing himself up. He would need to keep being himself to retain his appeal but not go too far. Even the conscious process of attempting to strike that balance would be a gamble because it would involve discipline and restraint — and thus a partial abandonment of the unscripted spontaneity that endeared him to his supporters in the first place.

While the GOP presidential field was broad, Trump could act with relative impunity, but as it has narrowed, his margin for error has significantly decreased. The more outrageous his behavior the less likely his appeal will expand beyond his base, which simply doesn’t care about anything other than his positions on immigration and trade, his business acumen, and his outsider status.

The more the field has winnowed the more apparent Trump’s ignorance and thoughtlessness on most issues have become, as exemplified by his damaging interview with Chris Matthews on abortion and his subsequent inability to overcome it, such as taking some five separate positions on abortion in the following week.

Trump has finally given even some of his loyal supporters pause, but he’s definitely alienated a supermajority of women and others who might have considered voting for him before. Just as being himself led to his meteoric rise, continuing to be himself is leading to his implosion. Those who are praying for a makeover surely realize how difficult it would be for Trump and how risky it would be even if he could pull it off.

The only question is whether he will fall far and fast enough before the convention and Ted Cruz will continue to shine and rise in the polls.

I am increasingly optimistic.

Six months ago, I warned that Donald

Opinion

Bernie-Sanders-NH-Victory-Speech

Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders gives his victory speech in New Hampshire on Feb. 9, 2016. Photo: AP/J. David Ake)

Bernie Sanders started his campaign stumping for his ideals without savaging the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. That was an attractive combination.
Now that he’s done a lot better than anticipated (though way down in delegates), his people are wondering whether he has made a mistake by not lunging for Clinton’s throat.

The answer is no. He’d be even further down, because virtuous politicking has been the source of his charm.

Sanders has never been much of a team player. He is an independent, not a Democrat, but Team Democrat has respected his candidacy. And it has given him a platform he’d never have gotten on his own.

But the welcome mat shows holes. The impressive sums Sanders raises go to his campaign only. Clinton raises money for her campaign and for other Democrats down the ticket. Adding to an unpleasantness, the Sanders camp lashes out at Clinton’s fundraising as somehow sordid.

Exactly how are you going to get your liberal priorities passed without a friendlier House and Senate?

Not Sanders’ problem. Never has been. And that accounts for his modest accomplishments in Washington.

The Sanders campaign prides itself in speaking “the truth,” so here’s some:

Sanders did not fight alone for single-payer health care. He failed to attract a single co-sponsor for his recent single-payer bill, his fans explain, because the health care industry intimidated lesser liberals in the Senate.

But John Conyers proposed single-payer in the House and gathered more than 90 co-sponsors. (Conyers endorsed Clinton in the Michigan primary.)

Sanders recently accused Clinton of taking “significant money from the fossil fuel industry” — a claim for which The Washington Post awarded him three “Pinocchios.”

Oil and gas doesn’t even make the list of the top 20 industries contributing to the Clinton campaign. Fossil fuel money accounts for only 0.15 percent of her campaign and outside PAC sum. But Sanders gooses the numbers by dishonestly labeling donations from lobbyists who also work for other industries as fossil fuel money.

Sanders portrays himself as a one-man army fighting Wall Street abuses in the Senate. Actually, the one-man army has been one woman, named Elizabeth Warren.

Before joining the Senate, Warren championed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — detested by predatory lenders for shielding the little guys. Clinton was among the bureau’s most enthusiastic boosters and pushed other Democrats to sign on.

Sanders would have certainly won the financial industry’s enmity if it took him seriously. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page virtually ignores him, turning its wrath on the far more dangerous Warren.

Now, Clinton’s $225,000-per-speech fees from Goldman Sachs are fair game for the political opposition. But then the opposition has to show what Wall Street got in return other than her insights and her company.

A quid pro quo is hard to pin down. For example, the head of the D.E. Shaw group has given more than $800,000 to the Clinton effort. His company holds much distressed Puerto Rican debt and opposes letting the island file for bankruptcy. Clinton is for it.

Do note that the financial services industry is among New York state’s largest employers and is No. 1 for payroll. Clinton represented the state, and senators do confer with large hometown employers.
Speaking of which, Sanders waves his fist against wasteful military spending but voted to fund the $1.2 trillion F-35 fighter — one of the most expensive, most cost-overrun and most plagued weapons systems in U.S. history. Seems the maker, Lockheed Martin, employs a bunch of Vermonters.

Sanders looks best when he conducts politics from the high road. He’d do well to stay there for the sake of his legacy.

Bernie Sanders started his campaign stumping for

Opinion

Donald-Trump-Mar-a-Lago-Super-Tuesday

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks on Super Tuesday primary election night at the White and Gold Ballroom at The Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)

Donald Trump’s victories in the Republican primaries may make him seem like a sure winner. But those victories have been achieved by receiving either somewhat less than 40 percent of the votes or somewhat more than 40 percent, but never a majority.

The fragmenting of the Republican vote among many candidates in the primaries made this possible. But victory in the general election for President of the United States in November is going to require a lot more than 40 percent of the votes. And polls consistently show Mr. Trump to be the most negatively regarded of any of the candidates in either party.

In some Republican winner-take-all states, 40 percent of the votes can be enough to get 100 percent of the delegates. This leverage might enable Trump to gain a majority of the delegates needed to become the party’s nominee.

But Trump and his supporters want more. They are now talking as if winning a plurality of the delegates ought to be enough to gain him the nomination, despite his failing to get a majority, as required by long-standing rules.

There is a reason why the rules require a candidate for the nomination to receive a majority of the delegates. If you cannot even get a majority of the delegates in your own party, how can you expect to win the November election for President?

Delegates get their first opportunity to choose a candidate by voting according to the way their respective primary voters voted. But, if that process fails to produce a winner, then delegates can vote again, this time on the basis of their own best judgments, for as many rounds of voting as it may take before someone gets a majority.

None of this is new. Yet some Trump supporters are talking as if a failure to change the rules for the benefit of “the Donald” — by letting a plurality, rather than a majority, choose the winner — would mean that Trump had been cheated out of the nomination. But what of the voters who voted AGAINST Trump during the primaries? Despite the fog of political rhetoric, we should not lose sight of the fact that those who voted against Trump in the primaries were far more numerous than those who voted for him.

This might all be just an internal problem of the Republican Party, and of no concern for those of us who are not Republicans, except for one thing. This country is at a dangerous crossroads.

We got here by electing a president on the basis of glib words and boastful promises. We cannot afford to repeat that mistake.

In addition to internal polarizations, we are threatened by countries that openly declare their hatred of America, and are developing intercontinental missiles that can carry nuclear bombs. In addition, there are international terrorist organizations killing people in Europe and in the United States.

In order to deal with these threats, and especially secretive international terrorist organizations, we are going to need the cooperation of many other nations around the world. These nations, knowing that cooperating with the United States will make them targets for terrorists, must first have confidence in the words and deeds of whoever is President of the United States.

They cannot have that confidence in someone who is constantly spouting off with irresponsible rhetoric — some of which has to be walked back by his apologists — or someone whose snap judgments about complex and weighty issues betray a superficial knowledge, if not sheer ignorance.

If ever there was a time when we needed a serious, mature President of the United States, with a depth of knowledge and a foundation of personal character — a grownup in the White House — this is that time. But seldom a week goes by without Donald Trump demonstrating, yet again, that he is painfully lacking in all these prerequisites.

Instead of offering coherent plans for dealing with the nation’s problems, Trump skips that and boasts of the great things he will achieve. Those who dare to question are answered with cheap putdowns, often at a gutter level.

A man in his 60s, who is still acting like a spoiled adolescent, is not going to grow up in the next four years. And, as President, he would have the lives of us all, and our loved ones, in his hands, as well as the fate of this great nation at a fateful time.

There are signs that some people are belatedly waking up to the dangers that Donald Trump represents. We can only hope that the voters in Wisconsin are among them — and that voters in New York, California and elsewhere wake up before it is too late.

[mybooktable book=”wealth-poverty-and-politics-an-international-perspective” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Donald Trump's victories in the Republican primaries

Politics

Kasich Strategist: What Cruz Says in Public Not What He Says in Private

Trump-Cruz-Kasich-AP

Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump, left, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, center, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, right. (Photos: AP/Associated Press)

Ohio Gov. John Kasich has long-attempted to stay out of the Lyin’ Ted versus Sleazy Donald conversation. That no longer appears to be the case now that the campaign is on the receiving end of a new attack by Sen. Ted Cruz ahead of the Wisconsin Republican Primary on Tuesday.

Sen. Cruz is targeting Gov. Kasich for the first time with an attack ad airing on TV, which states the governor engaged in cronyism. The 30-second commercial reveals how Gov. Kasich received $611,000 when he was a board member of Worthington Industries, an Ohio-based steel processor. Coincidentally, the ad says, the company received tax breaks after Kasich became governor.

“Right before John Kasich was governor, he collected $611,000 from a Fortune 500 company. After Kasich became governor, that same company received 619 grand [$619,000] in state tax breaks for job creation but last year the company laid off 100 Ohioans even as its CEO cut a half-million dollar check to Kasich’s super PAC. John Kasich: Not for us,” says the narrator in the commercial.

John Weaver, Mr. Kasich’s chief strategist, called the ad “deceptive” and disputed the ad’s truthfulness and effectiveness.

“Ted Cruz is recycling failed Democrat attacks in a desperate effort to smear Governor Kasich,” John Weaver, Mr. Kasich’s chief strategist, said in response to the ad. “It didn’t work for dishonest Ohio Democrats in 2014 and won’t work for deceptive Ted Cruz now.”

Mr. Weaver also said that their is a major difference between what Sen. Cruz says in public and what he says in private. PPD has repeatedly reported that there is a concerted effort by the Republican Establishment to deny Donald Trump the nomination. Whether his supporters want to accept it or not, the Cruz campaign has been a part of that effort for months.

Mr. Weaver last week accused Sen. Cruz of backstabbing the campaign by not making good on their end of the deal. Basically, they are angry that Sen. Cruz is competing in states that he previously agreed he would not compete in because Gov. Kasich had a broader appeal in the Rust Belt and Northeast.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the 2012 nominee and outspoken critic of Donald Trump, tried to reach out to the Cruz campaign after he endorsed his candidacy in Utah, but received no response.

Weaver slammed the Texas senator and his campaign in a series of tweets, as well as during an appearance on CNN, which came shortly after Sen. Cruz told New York Republicans Gov. Kasich won’t be on the ballot for the Empire State’s crucial April 19. He said the private conversations between the campaigns were all about finding ways the two can deny Mr. Trump the delegates needed to win the nomination on the first ballot

Sen. Cruz has publicly called for Gov. Kasich to withdraw from the race because he cannot win the nomination outright.

“A vote for John Kasich is a vote for Donald Trump,” Cruz repeated again Saturday.

Mr. Trump also said Gov. Kasich should withdraw, adding that he believes a three-way race now hurts him more than Sen. Cruz. Polls show Mr. Trump is now the top second choice for both candidate’ supporters, lending to credence to Mr. Weaver’s and Mr. Trump’s assertions.

“On the other hand, Ted Cruz has never helped create any jobs, but did get a sweetheart loan from Goldman Sachs; a loan that he illegally failed to disclose during his Senate run,” Mr. Weaver added. “Cruz’s attack and own hypocrisy are further proof that the voters can’t trust him and he will do anything to win.”

Sen. Cruz did repeatedly tell a story about him and his wife Heidi having to liquidate a retirement account in order to fund the campaign. That in fact never happened and, in would appear, the Goldman Sachs loan was the real source of the funds he often spoke of in the story.

The senator said that the failure to disclose the Goldman Sachs loan was the result of a “paperwork error.”

In the wake of a new attack

Politics

Bernie-Sanders-Pittsburgh

Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders holds a rally in Pittsburg, Penn., on March 31, 2016.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is promising to rewrite trade deals and oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) ahead of the Wisconsin and Pennsylvania primaries. With less than 24 hours before voting starts in The Badger State, Sen. Sanders is touting his opposition to NAFTA, CAFTA, and his support for American workers over globalist trade policies entrenched in TPP.

“Not only did I oppose permanent normal trade relations with China, I stood with Steel workers and united electrical workers in opposition to it,” Sanders said at a rally in Pittsburg. “Normalized trade with China cost us 3.2 million jobs, including over 120,000 here in Pennsylvania.”

Sanders, who leads in four of five Wisconsin Democratic Primary polls and the average, has won the last five contests yet remains the clear underdog for the Democratic nomination. The self-proclaimed socialist has been reluctant to attack Mrs. Clinton on either Benghazi or the FBI’s criminal investigation into her use of a private email server to conduct official State Department business.

“By the way, there are a lot of people who say, Bernie, why don’t you go after her on her FBI investigation?” Bernie told Jake Tapper on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday. “Why don’t you go after her on the Clinton Foundation money? We have chosen not to do that.”

Polls show Mrs. Clinton still holds a significant lead in The Keystone State, though polling has been relatively scant and the Sanders campaign has reason to believe the race is much closer. In Michigan, Sanders’ trade message led to the biggest polling upset since the New Hampshire Democratic primary in 1984.

“Wisconsin is a better fit for Sen. Sanders not only because it will almost certainly be whiter, but because Mrs. Clinton has stronger relationships with the Democratic Establishment and black community in Pennsylvania,” says PPD senior political analyst Richard Baris. “That said, these contests are proportional and it is in the Rust Belt. He would be derelict not to compete for these votes.”

Sen. Sanders will hold two events at UAW (United Auto Workers Union) Local 95 in Janesville, Wisconsin on Monday, the hometown of Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan. Further, on the other side of the aisle, the message is also resonating with GOP primary voters in Pennsylvania.

Donald J. Trump currently leads his closest rival by 18 points, according to the latest poll. However, despite efforts, Sanders has been unable to break Mrs. Clinton’s continued hold on black voters, who are largely fueling her double-digit lead on the average of polls in Pennsylvania, where 210 delegates are at stake.

Ahead of the Wisconsin and Pennsylvania Democratic

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