Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Thursday, February 27, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 730)
Policy

Bernie Sanders

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a political rally at the Veterans Memorial Coliseum at Alliant Energy Center in Madison, Wis., Wednesday, July 1, 2015. (Michael P. King/Wisconsin State Journal via AP)

Almost everyone in Washington is talking about last night’s GOP debate. I sent out a few tweets as I watched, and my main after-the-fact observation is that there was very little discussion about the ever-growing burden of government spending, which is America’s most pressing economic problem.

But I’m a contrarian, so while everyone else is talking about Republicans, I’m going to focus instead on the Democratic side and address the fiscal agenda of Bernie Sanders. The Vermont Senator has a voting record is almost identical to the scores received by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when they were in the Senate, so one might wonder whether there’s a rationale for his candidacy.

But Sanders is tapping into a desire on the part of many Democratic voters who want a candidate who openly and proudly advocates for big government. And even if neither they nor Sanders actually know the technical distinction between socialism and traditional American-style leftism, there’s an appreciation for the fact that he actually says what he believes.

And he definitely believes that Washington knows best on the issue of spending money.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Laura Meckler reports on the price tag for Bernie Sanders’ agenda. It’s a big number, even by Washington standards.

Sen. Bernie Sanders…is proposing an array of new programs that would amount to the largest peacetime expansion of government in modern American history. …he backs at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade… His agenda includes an estimated $15 trillion for a government-run health-care program that covers every American, plus large sums to rebuild roads and bridges, expand Social Security and make tuition free at public colleges. To pay for it, Mr. Sanders, a Vermont independent running for the Democratic nomination, has so far detailed tax increases that could bring in as much as $6.5 trillion over 10 years, according to his staff. A campaign aide said additional tax proposals would be offered to offset the cost of some, and possibly all, of his health program.

Here’s the breakdown of all the new spending.

The WSJ story also measures the degree to which the Sanders agenda would expand the burden of government spending.

…his agenda articulates the goals of many liberals and is exerting a leftward pressure on the party’s 2016 field. The Sanders program amounts to increasing total federal spending by about one-third—to a projected $68 trillion or so over 10 years. For many years, government spending has equaled about 20% of gross domestic product annually; his proposals would increase that to about 30% in their first year. As a share of the economy, that would represent a bigger increase in government spending than the New Deal or Great Society.

That’s good information, but keep in mind that the burden of government spending already is projected to climb substantially even without all of the new boondoggles being proposed by Sen. Sanders. So, what the Vermont Senator is really advocating is racing even faster in the direction of Greece. And that means pressure for additional tax hikes. So the bad ideas being proposed by Sanders will just be the beginning.

If the big spenders succeed, we can also expect proposals for an energy tax, a value-added tax, a wealth tax, and a financial transactions tax.

Just in case you think I’m being unfair to Sanders, let’s now cite someone who argues that the $18 trillion figure is needlessly scary because all that’s really happening is that certain activities will be shifted from the private sector to government.

Here are some excerpts from a column in the Washington Post by Paul Waldman.

…while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we’re already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways it’s by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers. …we shouldn’t treat his proposals as though they’re going to cost us $18 trillion on top of what we’re already paying.

He cites a hypothetical example.

If I told you I could cut your health insurance premiums by $1,000 and increase your taxes by $1,000, you wouldn’t have lost $1,000. You’d be in the same place you are now.

In other words, notwithstanding my title, Waldman is saying that Sanders won’t be expensive to your wallet because he’s simply putting the government in charge of paying for certain things that are now privately financed.

That’s actually a (somewhat) fair point, but it overlooks two big issues. First, there will a lot more redistribution and class-warfare taxation if Sen. Sanders is able to impose his agenda. So the people who are being fleeced today by the IRS will be subject to additional demands to cough up money.

In other words, Sen. Sanders’ plan is a threat to the wallets of the people who actually pay for government.

Second, bigger government will have negative effects even if we limit the analysis to folks who theoretically are held harmless (like Waldman’s example of a person paying $1,000 more in taxes but paying $1,000 less in health premiums).

That’s because people’s willingness to work is driven in part by a desire to purchase certain things, such as health care and/or health insurance. As illustrated by this cartoon parody, that incentive would be eroded if Sanders’ agenda is adopted and folks can get freebies from Uncle Sam.

And people’s willingness to work also is impacted by marginal tax rates. So they’ll have less incentive to engage in productive behavior because of all the tax hikes needed to finance the new spending proposed by Sanders.

Moreover, keep in mind that governments don’t use resources as efficiently as the private sector. That means more waste and less growth. You don’t have to take my word for it. Even research from establishment organizations like the European Central Bank find that smaller governments are more efficient. And the normally left-leaning World Bank even acknowledged thatthe evidence is strong about bigger governments harming growth.

Sanders-Socialist-cartoon

Let’s close with a political cartoon that showed up in my inbox. I have no idea if the cartoonist is trying to make fun of Republicans or make fun of Bernie Sanders, but he cleverly shows that Sanders embraces a term that others consider a slur. If you want some political humor that is clearly anti-Sanders, you can click here for two funny images.

During the entire 3 hours of the

Economy

Janet-Yellen-Congress

Janet Yellen waits to respond to questions from the House Committee on Financial Services during her first congressional hearing as chair of the Federal Reserve. She delivered the Fed’s semiannual report on monetary policy Tuesday. (Photo: Griffin Moores)

The Federal Reserve policy-making committee decided against raising short-term interest rates on Thursday, opting rather to suggest a rate hike in December. In its policy statement, Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) backed itself out of its self-imposed deadline, stating it will decide to make its first interest-rate increase after “some further improvement in the labor market” and when they are “reasonably confident” inflation will move back to their 2% annual target.

The Fed’s statement is significant considering the Labor Department’s August jobs report alleged the headline unemployment rate fell to 5.1%, which is the lowest level in seven a half years. However, as PPD reported, the labor market is a part-time animal with an abysmal civilian labor force participation rate. While the U.S. economy has technically regained all of the 8.8 million jobs lost during the financial crisis, the quality of the jobs created has been low and the economy is a part-time animal. The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons–sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers–stood at 6.5 million in August. These workers prefer and are searching for full-time employment, but report that their hours had been cut back or were unable to find a full-time job.

The Labor Department reported on Friday of last week that U.S. producer prices were flat in August, indicating inflation pressures remained weak ahead of the Federal Reserve’s meeting on Thursday. Fed officials are concerned over recent volatility in the global markets, noting “recent global economic and financial developments may restrain economic activity somewhat and are likely to put further downward pressure on inflation in the near term.”

While the FOMC uses their own gauge of wholesale and consumer inflation, the Labor Department said last Thursday U.S. import prices posted their biggest drop in seven months as weakening global demand took a toll in August. With a strong dollar and softening global demand pushing the cost of petroleum and a range of other goods down, import prices fell 1.8 percent last month, the largest decline since January. The Fed’s preferred indicator for inflation–the so-called PCE price deflator–is currently posting just 0.3% on a year-over-year basis. Excluding volatile food and energy prices, inflation is running at 1.2%, which are both well below the Fed’s target.

Now, all eyes will be on the FOMC’s policy meetings scheduled in October and December, as the Fed upgraded its economic outlook slightly for this year. Still the central bank sees the U.S. economy growing at just 2.1% in 2015, up from its previous projection of 1.9% but far below historical averages. In fact, the FOMC said it sees the economy expanding at 2% or more annually for the next three years. But, even if the complete labor market picture improved significantly, both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have lobbied the U.S. central bank to delay raising interest rates until the global markets and economy show further signs of improvement.

In its new forecast Thursday, the Fed stated it anticipates inflation returning to its 2% target by 2018, while they project lower inflation this year at just 0.4%. In June, just a few short months ago, the central bank’s inflation projection was 0.7%. New interest rate projections suggest the Fed will increase interest rates only once this year, if at all, down from two hikes laid out in initial projections back in June. The forecasted path for an interest rate increase is now much narrower than it was prior to the meeting on Thursday, and they now see the Fed funds rate at 3.5% over the long run, compared to its previous projection in June of 3.8%.

Richmond Fed President Jeffrey Lacker dissented among voting members on the committee, marking the first rate-setting FOMC meeting that was not unanimous this year.

The Federal Reserve policy-making committee decided against

Economy

Second Major Regional Manufacturing Index Falls into Contracts in September

mid-atlantic-manufacturing-aluminium-raw-materials-reuters

A worker in the mid-Atlantic manufacturing sector works with raw aluminum materials. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s regional Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey for the mid-Atlantic tanked to -6 in September from 8.3 the month prior. The Fed’s reading came in far below economists’ expectations for a drop to positive 6. The report marks the second major regional manufacturing survey released this week showing the sector contracting, as the Empire State Manufacturing Survey out Wednesday showed regional manufacturing activity contracted for a second straight month in September, remaining well below zero at -14.7.

While the general activity index fell into contraction territory, indicators for new orders, shipments, and employment remained positive. The survey’s broadest measure of manufacturing conditions–the diffusion index of current activity–fell from 8.3 in August to -6.0 in September, which is the first negative reading for the index since February 2014. Still, there are some bright spots to note.

Overall demand for manufactured goods as measured by the survey’s current new orders index continued to grow. The diffusion index climbed from 5.8 last month to 9.4, while firms reported that shipments have also increased. Thought the current shipments index stayed in positive territory, it fell 2 points to 14.8. Further, the percentage of firms reporting gains in employees (21%) was greater than the percentage reporting a decrease (11%). The current employment index increased 5 points, its highest reading in five months. Firms also reported, on balance, a modest increase in the workweek similar to August.

Special Questions (September 2015)*

1. How will your firm’s total production for the third quarter compare with that of the second quarter?
An increase of:
% of firms
Subtotals
10% or more
5.4%
45.9% of firms reporting an increase
8-10%
5.4%
6-8%
5.4%
4-6%
9.5%
2-4%
6.8%
1-2%
8.1%
Less than 1%
5.4%
No change
12.2%
A decline of: 41.9% of firms reporting a decline
Less than 1%
1.4%
1-2%
6.8%
2-4%
4.1%
4-6%
6.8%
6-8%
5.4%
8-10%
4.1%
10% or more
13.5%
The median value for all responses is “no change.”
2. For the upcoming fourth quarter, how much growth do you expect at your plant compared with the third quarter?
Significant acceleration
6.8%
40.5% of firms reporting
acceleration
Some acceleration
16.2%
Slight acceleration
17.6%
No change
20.3%
Slight deceleration
18.9%
39.2% of firms reporting
deceleration
Some deceleration
17.6%
Significant deceleration
2.7%

*Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s regional Manufacturing Business

Polls

Donald-Trump-Ben-Carson-Carly-Fiorina

Republican presidential candidates: Billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump, left, Dr. Ben Carson, center, and former Hewlitt-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, right. (PHOTOS: AP)

The “professional” pundits Wednesday night have had their say, but now it’s the voters’ turn and they couldn’t disagree more. The PPD Post Republican Debate Poll finds 58.5% thought frontrunner and billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump won round two hosted by CNN at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlitt-Packard CEO and consensus winner among the political pundit class, came in a distant second with 18%.

“Once again, the so-called professional cable TV and network news pundits have been totally proven wrong,” said PPD’s senior political analyst Richard D. Baris. “While we are beginning to see some degree of fatigue with Donald Trump’s lack of specifics in a debate forum, teflon Don isn’t going anywhere. With the exception of Carly Fiorina, candidates who chose to attack the frontrunner did not come out ahead. In fact, despite Fiorina’s overall positive night, she exposed a not-so likable side of herself in some of the exchanges that didn’t sit too well with some of the panelists.”

PPD asked the following questions:

  1. “Who won the CNN Republican debate Wednesday night?”
  2. “Do you have a more favorable or less favorable view of [candidate’s name] after the debate?”
  3. “Do you view [candidate’s name] as a stronger or weaker leader after the debate?”
  4. “What word best describes [candidate’s name] performance, [Choice] or [Choice]?
    (Choices: Genuine or Fake; Confident or Desperate)

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie tied with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for third place with 6% of voters saying each candidate won the CNN Republican debate. However, Gov. Christie exhibited the most positive change as it relates to voters’ before-and-after views of the candidates. Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they now hold a more favorable view of Gov. Christie than they did prior to and because of his performance. Further, 58% said Christie was “Genuine,” putting him only behind Trump (64%), Cruz (61%) and Dr. Ben Carson(60%).

“Christie had a big night,” Baris said. “And while it isn’t at all likely he will shoot to the front of the pack, he has really positioned himself to capitalize on the long-ball game. With Gov. Kasich having such a poor night, Christie just gave moderate New Hampshire primary voters a credible alternative to both Bush and Kasich.”

On strength, Ohio Gov. John Kasich saw a net negative change of 11.5%, with voters citing the exchange over whether or not to “tear up” the Iran deal between him and Sen. Cruz as the primary reason. On the flip side, Fiorina and Rubio saw the most positive shift on strength, with a 38% and 24.5% change following their performance, respectively. Carson, who has been running second in the most recent national and early state polling following his performance in the first Republican debate, took a 10-point hit on the question of strength.

“Beyond a doubt, Carson could not adequately answer his opposition to the Afghanistan war effort in the immediate period following the 9/11 terror attacks,” Baris added. “This really gave our panel pause, many of whom said they were not aware he had even taken such a position. My sense is that–even though Carson didn’t do much to hurt himself–he might have given voters a reason to take a second look at someone else. The good news for Carson is that he has the highest favorability rating out of any of the Republican candidates, and his new-found supporters mostly came from Gov. Scott Walker.”

Baris, who penned an op-ed prior to the debate outlining what Walker would have to do to get himself back on track, said the governor did not rise to the occasion he needed to in order to begin to peel these voters back from Carson or Fiorina, albeit the latter to a lesser extend.

The "professional" pundits Wednesday night have had

Economy

homebuilder-housing-reuters

Homebuilders and construction in the housing market. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

The Commerce Department said Thursday that U.S. housing starts fell more than expected in August, falling 3.0% to a seasonally adjusted annual pace of 1.13 million-units. July’s starts, which were initially reported to be sideways but remained around a 10-year high, were revised down to a 1.16 million-unit rate from the previously reported 1.21 million-unit pace.

Still, despite the decrease, which was fueled by declines in groundbreaking on single and multifamily projects, starts remained above a one million-unit pace for the fifth straight month. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast groundbreaking on new homes falling to a 1.17 million-unit pace last month.

Meanwhile, building permits actually gained 3.5% last month to a 1.17 million-unit pace, after falling by 15.5% in July.

In August, groundbreaking for single-family homes, which accounts for the largest share of the market, fell 3.0 percent to a 739,000 unit pace. Single-family home building in the South, where most of the home construction takes place, rose 9.2 percent to the highest level since December 2007.

Starts for the volatile multifamily segment fell 3.0 percent to a 387,000 unit rate. Single-family building permits rose 2.8 percent in August to their highest level since January 2008. Multi-family building permits rose 4.7 percent.

A report on Wednesday showed confidence among homebuilders advancing to a near-decade high in September.

The Commerce Department said that housing starts

Economy

Weekly-Jobless-Claims-Graphic

Weekly Jobless Claims Graphic. Number of Americans applying for first-time jobless benefits.

The number of Americans filing new applications for unemployment benefits fell last week to the lowest level in eight weeks for the week ended Sept. 12. Initial claims for state unemployment benefits, otherwise known as weekly jobless claims or the firing rate, fell 11,000 to a seasonally adjusted 264,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday.

That’s the lowest reading since the week ended July 18, and was the 28th straight week that claims remained below the 300,000 threshold, which is typically associated with a strengthening labor market. However, it is also a fact that the number of eligible Americans–due to the number of long-term unemployed who have already exhausted their benefits–has influenced the gauge alongside a change in the Labor Department’s survey methodology.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims holding at 275,000 last week. The data covered the Labor Day holiday and claims tend to be volatile around holidays. A Labor Department analyst said there were no special factors influencing the data, and claims for the prior week were unrevised.

The four-week moving average of claims–widely considered to be a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility–decreased 3,250 to 272,500 last week. Still, the recent global stock market sell-off has lowered the probability of a Federal Reserve interest rate hike this week, which was self-imposed by the Federal Reserve Open Markets Committee.

The claims data for the week ended Sept. 12 included the period during which the government surveyed employers for the nonfarm payrolls portion of the September employment report. Overall, claims fell 13,000 between the August and September survey weeks, which usually indicates job growth. Last month, the economy added just 173,000 jobs in August, declining from July’s gain of 245,000. Thursday’s claims report showed the number of people still receiving benefits after an initial week of aid fell 26,000 to 2.24 million in the week ended Sept. 5.

The number of Americans filing new applications

Politics

Donald-Trump-Jeb-Bush-CNN-GOP-Debate-AP

Republican presidential candidates, businessman Donald Trump, left, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush talk together before the start of the CNN Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum on Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2015, in Simi Valley, Calif. (PHOTO: AP/Chris Carlson)

Frontrunner Donald Trump was the clear target in the CNN GOP debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California Wednesday night. However, despite the best efforts of several candidates on the stage, The Donald came out of several heated exchanges unscathed. In one of the more entertaining and revealing moments of the night, when the candidates were discussing the Iraq War, Trump blamed Gov. Jeb Bush’s brother, former President George W. Bush, for the election and subsequent presidency of Barack Obama.

“It was such a disaster those last few months that Abraham Lincoln couldn’t have been elected,” Trump said.

Though Bush received the loudest applause of the night when he defended his brother, stating he “kept us safe,” the Florida-based focus group PPD has been tracking for over a month indicated Trump still got the better of the exchange. But voters were happy to hear Bush’s post-9/11 actions as president defended by the former Florida governor, who has waffled on the most predictable issue on several occasions.

READ ALSO — Post Republican Debate Poll: Pundits Proven Wrong (Again) on Who Won

“You feel safe right now?” Trump asked.

Interestingly, far and away, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie changed the most minds on a percentage basis. Christie went from being viewed as the second biggest loser of the first Republican debate hosted by Fox News in Ohio, to voters thus far indicating they believe he tied former Hewlitt-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina for winner of the second debate. The strongest moment in the debate for Gov. Christie came when he intervened between Trump and Fiorina when they were bickering over their private sector records, stating middle-class Americans “could care less about your careers” and called on the two to “stop this childish back and forth.”

Fiorina’s strongest moment came when she made an impassioned appeal to Congress to defund Planned Parenthood amid the release of undercover videos exposing the organization’s trafficking of baby body parts.

“This is about the character of our nation,” Fiorina said. “And if we will not stand up and force President Obama to veto this bill, shame on us.”

Dr. Ben Carson, who has been running second in recent national Republican primary polls, also saw his numbers stay sideways. Overall, the two frontrunners did not give voters a reason to rule them out, nor did they generate further excitement. Worth noting, Trump’s excitement levels and percentage of firm supporters are significantly higher than other candidates in the field, including Dr. Ben Carson.

Unlike Trump supporters, a significantly number of voters currently supporting Carson say Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is their second choice. PPD will release a full write up and analysis of our findings from our Sunshine State focus group, as well as the results from snap polls on Thursday afternoon.

Read Full & Final Results

Frontrunner Donald Trump was the clear target

Opinion

jobs-fair

American workers wait on a jobs fair line. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

Could there be a reason for the widening pay gap that’s not exactly economic? There could be. The employment rate has fallen to a very low 5.1 percent. A tightening labor market is supposed to lead to higher wages, but that’s not happening. Some of the lowest wages are actually falling.

Productivity gains — whereby workers produce more in the same amount of time — traditionally boost paychecks. Not nowadays.

Bosses and their investors are grabbing most of the profits. That’s not just because they can but because there’s no longer much of a social cost for not sharing. Technology and globalization have created a thick buffer between the top earners and public opinion.

That wasn’t always the case. After World War II, lingering public anger over the Great Depression and some profiteering during the war created an expectation that business and labor would share in the postwar prosperity, former MIT professor Frank Levy once told me.

A golden age for the American worker ensued. Productivity rose fast and wages along with it. Until 1973.

Between 1973 and 2014, net productivity grew over 72 percent while the real wages of the median worker rose just 8.7 percent, according to a new study by the Economic Policy Institute.

“If the hourly pay of typical American workers had kept pace with productivity growth since the 1970s,” the report said, “then there would have been no rise in income inequality during that period.”

There could be several reasons for this. One must be employers’ becoming ever more remote from their employees. That has turned working people from being their teammates to being mere economic inputs, alongside the cost of energy, raw materials and borrowing.

As the old black-and-white movies showed, factory owners and Main Street merchants lived in the same town as their workers, even if on opposite sides of the tracks. Bosses who treated their people badly were shunned.

Owners and workers now often live on different continents. The captains of the growing gig economy, as epitomized by Uber, may not even set eyes on those enriching them. The dealings are done impersonally online. (Uber is fighting against having to even recognize its drivers as employees. That would entitle them to some added benefits.)

Wal-Mart’s decision last year to start raising its infamously low wages came out of world headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas. Wolfe Research had downgraded Wal-Mart stock because the chain’s overworked staff was unable to keep the shelves stocked. The stores were looking shabby because of “Walmart U.S.’s relentless focus on costs,” it said.

So the pay raise — still well below the $15-an-hour level being legislated in some states and cities — was clearly not motivated to win the affections of the 500,000 workers. (The good opinion of stockroom clerks — and their families –would have mattered to the local retailers that Wal-Mart had long ago put out of business.)

We can accuse these employers of greed until we’re blue in the face. But shaming is a dull weapon against weakened social restraints.

The very rich are more and more separated from everyone else. In their circles, net wealth is often regarded as the supreme mark of personal excellence. The workers, as the conservative movement tells them, should be grateful they even have a job.

It’s hard to see what can change all this. Higher minimum wages are an obvious place to start — as are labor laws mandating paid vacation.

One thing that might raise the social price for gross inequality is publicizing the difference in pay between the top executives and the lowest workers. The question always remains, Are the bosses too cushioned to care?

Could there be a reason for the

Opinion

Hillary-Clinton-NH-Getty

EXETER, NH – AUGUST 10: Hillary Clinton held a town meeting event at Exeter High School in Exeter, N.H. on Aug. 10, 2015. (Photo: Suzanne Kreiter/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

The bad news has continued to cascade onto the Hillary Clinton for President campaign, and none of it has anything to do with Clinton’s opinions on issues. It all is about her fitness for office.

Since Labor Day, we have learned that the folks into whose hands Clinton reposed her computer server for safe keeping do not believe it has been wiped clean of all emails, as her lawyer told a federal judge it was. That means the 33,000 emails she thought she destroyed probably still could be recovered. What will they reveal?

And we learned earlier this week that of the emails released thus far — those Clinton did not attempt to destroy — there is a five-month gap for which no emails were produced. For a government official who sent or received about 15,000 emails a year, five months of silence is not believable. Two of those months followed the assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya in Benghazi. Where are her emails from that time period?

Why should you care about this?

It is now well established that when she was secretary of state, Clinton refused to use government computers or servers for any of her emails — governmental and personal. She kept all of her emails from the government. That constitutes theft of government property, as it violates a federal law that mandates that the government owns the emails its employees generate in their work, and if an employee commingles her personal emails with the government’s, the government owns those, as well.

Clinton said she did this because she believed it would be easier to do all emailing from one hand-held device, even though she eventually used four devices. Instead of accepting a secure government-issued BlackBerry, she had aides buy an off-the-shelf BlackBerry. We now know she was trying to conceal her Middle Eastern escapades — secret wars and personal approvals of arms dealings to terrorists — from the president, from FBI investigators, from State Department colleagues and from history.

But her most serious crime is her failure to safeguard national secrets. The secretary of state is the nation’s chief diplomat. She deals with military, diplomatic and national security secrets every day. One of the reasons government employees are required by law to use a government-issued hand-held device and a government-owned and secured server for their official work is to safeguard the national security secrets that pass to and from them by securing their emails with government software and encryption.

Why should you care about this?

When she became secretary of state, Clinton told the president she wanted to hire her friend Sidney Blumenthal — whom the press has nicknamed ‘the prince of darkness’ and ‘grassy knoll’ — to work as her senior adviser. The president himself blocked the toxic Blumenthal from working for the State Department, whereupon Clinton had her husband’s foundation hire him. She then proceeded to engage with him as if he were a senior adviser and to share top-secret emails with him. Blumenthal did not have any national security clearance, and it was a felony for Clinton to share government secrets with him.

Why should you care about this?

You should care about this because Clinton is running for president. Yet, she is uniquely unqualified for the presidency because she is the moral equivalent of a common crook.
Like a crook, she breaks the law, lies about why she broke the law, sees no wrongdoing in her ways and expects to get away with it. Though millions of Democrats have dreamed of her in the White House, and are apparently willing to overlook her crimes, her support is beginning to erode.

How can a person with the morals of a crook be the chief law enforcement officer in the land, the commander in chief of the military and the repository of more lawful power than any person on the planet? How can she be entrusted with national security secrets in the future when she has failed to safeguard them in the past?

Because Blumenthal lacked the government’s encryption on his email devices and server, he was hacked by foreign agents. Because he was hacked, Clinton was hacked. Because she was hacked, some of the nation’s military, diplomatic and national security secrets in a dangerous world are now in dangerous hands.

A sailor faces 20 years in federal prison for taking a selfie in front of a radar screen and sending it to his girlfriend, and a courageous Marine who used his Gmail account in an emergency to warn his superiors of the near proximity of an assassin faces 20 years for failing to keep the email about the assassin in a secure venue. Then-CIA Director David Petraeus kept secrets in an unlocked desk drawer in his home, which was guarded 24/7, and he pleaded guilty to failure to safeguard secrets.

Clinton’s crimes are far worse, but is she any different legally? Can she get away with her crimes because of her last name? She seems to think so. Last week she apologized for making poor choices — not crimes, but poor choices. And she has given no coherent legal justification for all this.

While all this is going on, Vice President Biden is dreaming about his boss’s job because he and many Democrats have come to the realization that Hillary Clinton is utterly unworthy of their trust, and power in her hands might be used for unlawful purposes.

The bad news has continued to cascade

Policy

Obama-Labor-Day-Boston

President Barack Obama speaks at the Greater Boston Labor Council Labor Day Breakfast, Monday, Sept. 7, 2015, in Boson. Obama signed an Executive Order requiring federal contractors to offer their employees up to seven days of paid sick leave per year. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

As a libertarian, I sometimes make the moral argument for small government. If it’s wrong to steal other people’s income or property, then shouldn’t it also be wrong to use the coercive power of government to take their income or property? Defenders of the welfare state respond by saying it’s “the will of the people,” but the libertarian counter-response is to point out that 51 percent of the people shouldn’t be allowed to pillage 49 percent of the people.

Indeed, as Walter Williams has cogently explained, that’s why America’s Founding Fathers were such strong opponents of what they viewed as “untrammeled majoritarianism.” But since I realize that some people aren’t persuaded by philosophical arguments, much of my work focuses on the practical or utilitarian case for small government. That’s why I repeatedly show how market-oriented jurisdictions out-perform statist nations.

I’ve even challenged my left-wing friends to come up with a single example of a successful big-government economy. Needless to say, the only response is the sound of chirping crickets.

Mitchell-Challenge

Now, let’s add one more piece of evidence to our arsenal. I’ve already shared lots of data and information when making the case that Obama’s big-government policies have not worked, but, in the spirit of Mae West, there’s no such thing as too much proof that statism doesn’t work.

Especially when the evidence comes from the Obama Administration! Here are two damning charts from a just-released Census Bureau report on income and poverty in the United States. The first chart shows that median household income, adjusted for inflation, is nearly $1300 lower today than it was when Obama took office.

Census-Income

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

That’s a horrible outcome, particularly since the recession ended back in the summer of 2009.

By the way, I agree with critics who say that the household income data is a less-than-ideal measure of prosperity. That being said, it’s still a neutral benchmark that allows us to see how well the economy does in some periods compared to others.

And if you look at the above chart, you clearly can see that households obviously did comparatively well during the market-oriented Reagan and Clinton eras.

Now let’s look at some data that should be very compelling for leftists who claim to be especially concerned about the less fortunate. Here are the latest Census Bureau numbers on the number of people living in poverty as well as the overall poverty rate.

As you can see, there’s been no progress during the Obama years, even if you absolve him of any blame for the deteriorating numbers caused by the recession.

Census-Poverty

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

By the way, I can’t resist pointing out that this chart shows how the poverty rate was declining until the so-called War on Poverty started in the mid-1960s. And if you can click here to learn more about how bad government policies have trapped people in poverty. And if you’re interested in several hundred years of data on poverty and government policy, click here.

Dan Mitchell examines data and two new

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