Gun Lies

My town, New York City, enforces rigid gun laws. Police refused to assign me a gun permit. The law doesn’t even let me hold a fake gun on TV to demonstrate something.

But New York politicians are so eager to vilify gun ownership that they granted an exception to the anti-gun group States United to Prevent Gun Violence. New York allowed States United to set up a fake gun store, where cameras filmed potential gun customers being spoofed by an actor pretending to be a gun-seller.

“This a nine-millimeter semi-automatic. It’s a very handy gun. It’s easy to use,” he says. “You can carry it in a purse like that gal from Wal-Mart. Her two-year-old son reaches into her pocketbook, pulls it out, shoots her. Dead, gone, no Mom!”

States United then made that footage into an anti-gun public service announcement. “Over 60 percent of Americans think owning a gun will make them safer. In fact, owning a gun increases the risk of homicide, suicide and unintentional death,” says the video.

It’s a powerful message. But it’s a lie, says John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He says that gun control advocates lie all the time.

Lott acknowledges the tragedies. Sometimes a gun in the home is used in a homicide or suicide, or leads to accidental death, but he adds, “It also makes it easier for people to defend themselves — women and the elderly in particular.”

Lott says, “Every place in the world that’s tried to ban guns … has seen big increases in murder rates. You’d think at least one time, some place, when they banned guns, murder rates would go down. But that hasn’t been the case.”

I pushed back: what about people harming themselves?

“There are lots of different ways for people to commit suicide,” Lott said, and researchers have looked at how those tragedies are affected by access to guns. “We find that people commit suicide in other ways if they don’t have guns.”

What about accidents? Lott replies that accidental shooting deaths are relatively rare: “about 500 a year.” That sounds bad, but about 400 Americans are killed by overdosing on acetaminophen each year (most of them suicides), and almost as many Americans drown in swimming pools.

“It would be nice if it was zero (but) consider that 120 million Americans own guns,” Lott says.

Often those guns are used to prevent crime. The homeowner pulls out the gun and the attacker flees. No one knows how often this happens because these prevented crimes don’t become news and don’t get reported to the government, but an estimate from the Violence Policy Center suggests crimes may be prevented by guns tens of thousands of times per year.

Add politics to the mix and the anti-gun statistics get even more misleading. Gang members in their late teens or early adulthood killing each other get called “children.” Fights between gangs near schools get called school “mass shootings.”

The number of mass shootings in America has been roughly level over the past 40 years, but the New York Times still runs headlines like, “FBI Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000.” That headline is absolutely true, but only because they deceitfully picked the year 2000 as their start point, and that was a year with unusually few mass shootings. It’s as if the paper wants to make it seem as if mass shootings are always on the rise, even as crime keeps going down.

It all helps stoke paranoia about guns. Some people respond by calling for more controls. Others, fearing the government may ban gun sales, respond by buying more weapons. The number of people holding permits to carry concealed weapons has skyrocketed to 12.8 million, up from 4.6 million just before President Obama took office. Since 40 percent of American households now own guns, anyone who wants to take them away will have a fight on his hands.

Has the increased gun ownership and carrying of guns led to more violence? Not at all. “Violent crime across the board has plummeted,” says Lott. “In 1991, the murder rate was about 9.8 (people) per 100,000. (Now) it’s down to about 4.2.”

I can’t convince my friends in New York City, but it’s just a fact: More guns — less crime.

Via: Human Events

Continue Reading....

How New York Ended Up With 1.2 Million Open Arrest Warrants

C

hristopher Howard never thought he would see the inside of a jail cell.

Growing up in a “dysfunctional family” in Gainesville, Florida, with an alcoholic uncle, a drug-addicted mother, and a wheelchair-bound grandmother, Howard dreamed of moving to New York and making it in the film industry. After a few unsatisfying years at Gainesville’s Santa Fe Community College, he dropped out and moved to a town in New Jersey, right across the Hudson River from Manhattan.

Soon enough, Howard, a tall African-American man with a deep voice and hazel eyes, began booking modeling and acting gigs and working as a waiter at Le Pain Quotidian to keep a steady income coming in. He quickly moved up the ranks, and now, at 30, owns his own production company, lives alone in a two-bedroom apartment, and has an eleven-month old daughter, Lian, whom he dotes upon. From his perspective, he’d beaten the odds. He’d left Florida and built the life he wanted.

But one afternoon this May, Howard found himself sitting behind bars at the NYPD’s 5th precinct in Chinatown.

“I was terrified,” he said, sipping a Blue Moon at Borough, a restaurant a few blocks from his apartment in Brooklyn’s Clinton Hill. “I just have never wanted to be in that position at all in my life.”

Howard had been on a production job, driving a van to cross the Manhattan Bridge into Brooklyn, when he was pulled over for running a stop sign. The sign was obscured by a double-parked car and he hadn’t seen it, as he explained to the officer who stopped him. The cop was sympathetic and told him he just needed to run his license before he could let him go. Moments later he returned and told Howard he had an open arrest warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket and would need to be taken to jail. Despite protesting that he had paid all outstanding tickets when he’d reinstated his license in Florida several years before, Howard was handcuffed next to the van, on a busy stretch of Canal street, and taken away in a squad car.

Howard’s story is surprisingly common. There are currently 1.2 million arrest warrants open in New York City. Many of the people who have them have no idea that these warrants exist, and many of the warrants themselves date back years, even decades.

The vast majority of warrants occur when people who receive summons for minor violations, such as riding a bike on the sidewalk or drinking a beer in public, fail to appear in court. Once they miss their court date, a bench warrant is issued for their arrest, meaning any interaction with a police officer, in which their ID is run and the warrant shows up, results in them being handcuffed and taken to the nearest precinct. For reasons ranging from lost tickets to lack of funds to pay fines to simple neglect, a full 40 percent of those ticketed failed to appear in court last year. These open warrants can interfere with their ability to find jobs, receive public housing, and achieve legal immigration status.

Via: Talking Points Memo

Continue Reading....

UBER AND THE DEMOCRATS’ OLD WAYS

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doesn’t get it. Obama administration Labor Secretary Thomas Perez doesn’t get it. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio doesn’t seem to get it, either, as he only reluctantly reversed a bad decision on the matter.

In fact, generally, in a somewhat surprising reversal, many so-called Democratic “progressives” want to protect the old ways. But there are exceptions, like Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who worked with Uber to create a legal framework in his state; Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who says that hailing a cab has provided some of his most humiliating moments; and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), a Brooklynite who during Uber’s recent showdown with de Blasio said, in essence, “What’s wrong with a little competition?”

On the other hand, Republicans, who are accused occasionally of supporting “crony capitalism,” have embraced the new way and have been eager to let in new businesses to compete. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican presidential hopeful, gets it. One of the chapters in his recent book is titled, “Making America Safe for Uber.”

The new way is the “sharing” or “gig” economy of Uber, Lyft, Airbnb and others. Republican politicians seem more open to embracing these new businesses and new jobs, and the freedom of citizens to contract with each other.  

Spurred by unions, powerful bureaucracies, a lack of personal experience, and perhaps a more favorable view of regulation, many Democrats want to ban, restrict, and tax these services.

A politician’s position on Uber is a proxy for how in touch they are with their community. De Blasio obviously had no idea how people move around his city. And Clinton likely hasn’t driven a car in decades. What all politicians should start seeing is why it is both bad policy and bad politics to jump in aggressively and try to ban or heavily burden these services. 

It’s bad policy because the transportation services are not just for upper-class urban dwellers. In fact, as a college president recently discovered while moonlighting as an Uber driver, these services are an important alternative for the working poor with limited public transportation options. They also don’t discriminate against minorities, the way many taxi drivers do.

Meanwhile, the home-sharing phenomenon created by Airbnb brings needed cash (and sometimes a cure for loneliness) for homeowners while allowing locales to attract additional visitors.

All this economic activity adds to reportable income and benefits both the public coffers and the economy.

My personal experiences with these services are almost all positive. My brother makes his mortgage payments on his Hawaii home only thanks to Airbnb. (He pays the same local taxes as a hotel.) My family is visiting Manhattan for a few days in August, and by using Airbnb we can have a reasonably priced separate room for the kids. (Try finding a Manhattan two-bedroom hotel room for less than $1,000 a day.)

I travel a lot for business and rely on Uber. I find ride hailing service drivers better. They have clean, smoke-free cars; they don't talk on the phone while driving; and our rating of each other after the drive ensures we both are courteous and safe. It is simply better than the typical cab experience. Plus, it is great competition.

In July, I took an Uber from Denver to Aspen for $240, less than half the cost of any timely alternative. It was scenic and fun, and I connected with the driver. Compare that to my United Airlines experience for that reverse route months earlier, when I paid double what I paid Uber, plus got hit with $250 in excess-baggage fees and was told a two-day-old policy barred me from checking my bags to another airline. (Thus, I missed my connecting Delta flight.) Yes, Uber was a great substitute for United.

It’s bad politics to oppose these services as they delight millions of average Americans. Moreover, they contribute to the financial well-being of tens of thousands of Americans who rely on them for supplemental income. For 84 percent of Lyft drivers, it’s not a full-time job. Uber likely has similar numbers.  

Some “progressives” are uncomfortable and argue that these drivers and homeowners are somehow worse off without government intervention. They want regulation going beyond safety, background screening, and insurance. They want union-like regulation for home-sharing and employee-related regulations and benefits for Uber and Lyft drivers.

Talk about imposing the nanny state on consenting adults. Having taken scores of Uber or Lyft rides, I have yet to meet a driver who says they want the government determining their employment status.

So, if Democratic politicians want to dig in their heels in fealty to unions and unnecessarily burden these services, Republicans can make inroads on many traditional Democratic constituencies. I can't wait to see the platforms of both parties leading up to their conventions. I predict that Republicans will embrace the sharing economy and that Democrats will try to, but add a lot of ifs, ands, or buts.

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading...

NEW YORK CITY: De Blasio is crafting his own downfall

Years ago, in a chat with then-Deputy Mayor Bill Lynch, I asked how the Dinkins administration set its agenda. Did it have daily staff meetings, consult with outsiders, poll public opinion?

Lynch, a respected, genial political operative who has since passed away, looked at me with surprise. “I wish we knew who set the agenda,” he said with a straight face.

At that moment, I realized the impression that the Dinkins mayoralty was being driven by events beyond its control was accurate. Whatever the problem, City Hall didn’t just seem to be caught off guard — it was caught off guard.

Something similar is now happening to Bill de Blasio. Mayor Putz is getting whacked like a ­piñata, and he always seems surprised.

One day, it’s murder mayhem, then an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease, then a cheating scandal in the schools. Some days, like yesterday, it’s an avalanche.

The comparison with the Dinkins years is apt, but breaks down in one key way. Dinkins’ sins were mostly those of omission; de Blasio is the architect of his dis­asters.

His main campaign promise was to change the direction of the city, and, unfortunately, he kept that promise. He is taking New York backwards.

Although murder is up by 10 percent, reports show most major crimes continue to fall. Yet it doesn’t feel that way.

Many, if not most, New Yorkers believe the city is sliding downhill, and that each day brings us one step closer to the bad old days of terrifying lawlessness and public disorder.

The fear is fueled by enough anecdotes to make it rational — gunfire sprays, with children caught in the crossfire, increased muggings in Central Park, and disheveled maniacs, some violent, taking over sidewalks and subways.

In large measure, these are the fruits of de Blasio’s policies. He wanted a kinder, gentler police force, made Al Sharpton an adviser — and the result is a more violent, bloodier city.

He said he wanted more humane policies on welfare and homelessness, and hired as commissioner Steven Banks, the former head of the Legal Aid Society who spent 30 years suing the city agency he now runs.

As Heather Mac Donald wrote in the City Journal, Banks “helped create, through lawsuit, New York’s unique obligation to provide housing on demand to families claiming homelessness.”

Given his disdain for efforts to get people off welfare and into jobs, it is fair to assume that Banks is at least partially responsible for the surge of people living in parks, shelters and on the streets.

Then there’s Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña, lured out of retirement by de Blasio because no other established educator would adopt his policies. Intent on turning back the clock on mainstream reforms, he and Fariña embraced the teachers-union cartel and are thwarting accountability measures considered standard best practices. In their warped vision, rigorous teacher evaluations and charter schools are enemies, while the union parties like it’s 1970.

The outrageous cheating scandal The Post exposed is a prime example of de Blasio’s folly. The union puts the protection of jobs ahead of everything else, so handing out unearned diplomas is a no-brainer when the aim is to shield the adults from the consequences of student failure.

As one teacher told The Post, “The state, the city, the mayor, the chancellor all look good with an inflated passing rate.”

So true — until that passing rate is exposed as a sham. That’s where we are now, and it’s a perfect metaphor for de Blasio’s tenure.

Less than halfway through his term, he needs a shakeup at City Hall. Problems are multiplying, the quality of life is declining and he is isolated inside his bubble with like-minded lefties.

On the outside, he has squandered public goodwill by showing indifference to the daily travails of city life. Among government leaders, his high-handed lectures have earned him a cold shoulder and ill wishes.

If he has a reset button, now would be the time to use it. Before he runs out of time.

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading....

Millennials Can Rescue Cities from Their Leftist Rulers

Most American cities have been ruled by left-wingers for decades, and a good case can be made that this has contributed mightily to their decline. Of course, this has done no favors for groups — minorities, the poor, blue-collar workers — that urban progressives count as loyal political allies.

Many Millennials are, so far, enrolled in this coalition but, if they’re paying attention, might be wondering why. On two key issues, the Left is unalterably out of step with most twentysomethings’ beliefs and interests.

First consider New York mayor Bill de Blasio’s recent attempt to defend his city’s taxicab cartel and stifle the fast-growing ride-sharing service Uber. His Honor lined up enough city-council votes to cap the size of Uber’s fleet (among other things) and then, while on a junket to Rome, went on a populist rant to justify his regulatory offensive, decreeing that “the people of our cities don’t like the notion of those who are particularly wealthy and powerful dictating terms to a government elected by the people.”

 Which turned out to be exactly backward. Uber and its (mostly Millennial) subscribers mounted a relentless PR counterattack, punching holes in the mayor’s assertions about the need for more regulations and making clear that they don’t like terms being dictated by the government. The chastened mayor backed off, promising to study the matter for a few months. In the unlikely event that this study is honest and objective, it would teach the mayor some very important lessons — foremost, that Millennials’ embrace of “Sharing Economy” firms like Uber does not merely make their lives easier and save them money. It helps save cities and, indeed, the planet.

Uber and its rival Lyft do not just bring competition (read: lower prices, better quality) to monopolistic markets. They exemplify a new kind of business that enables us to lighten our ecological footprints by making more-efficient use of our possessions. When we share otherwise-idle residential space (via Airbnb), tools (Open Shed), or clothing (Thredup), we squeeze more value out of the scarce resources used to create and maintain these goods. 

A nerdy economist might call this “efficiently amortizing fixed costs”; everyone else would just say it’s “being green.” And, in truth, this has always been a signal virtue of city life. When we cluster together in dense urban areas, we enjoy much lower costs per customer for our streets, water and power lines, and much else. Matthew Kahn has found that (after controlling for income and other influences on demand) the average suburbanite drives 31 percent more miles and consumes 58 percent more land, 49 percent more fuel oil, and 35 percent more electricity than the typical city dweller. 

Millennials are on board: A 2014 Nielsen survey found that almost two-thirds of the 77 million Americans aged 18 to 36 “prefer to live in the type of mixed-use communities found in urban centers,” and are currently living in such areas at a higher rate than any other age group.

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

Uber is the perfect poster child for the Republican economic agenda

When Uber got into a big fight with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Republican candidates for president leaped to Uber's defense. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul have all praised the company. Ted Cruz has even compared himself to Uber.

Meanwhile, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton recently warned that the "on-demand, or so-called 'gig economy'" is "raising hard questions about workplace protections" — not an explicit reference to Uber but an allusion to a class of companies of which Uber is the largest and most prominent.

There's something a little bit backward about this, as Uber is most popular in big cities with less than universal car ownership and lots of Democratic voters. But that's part of the reason talking about Uber is good politics for Republicans. It could help the party appeal to young, urban professionals who lean toward Democrats on cultural grounds but might find things to like in the GOP's economic message. It helps to drive a wedge between Uber-using urban professionals and more traditional — or more deeply ideological — liberals who see Uber's "gig economy" model as a threat to worker rights.

Of course, Uber itself cares less about presidential politics than about local regulation, where things tend to be less partisan in practice. Some Republican officeholders have been hostile to Uber, while many Democratic ones have been supportive. When the rubber meets the road, ordinary interest-group politics wind up mattering more than ideological considerations. But that doesn't stop Uber from being a potent tool in national politics, serving as a symbol for liberal fears and conservative hopes.

Why Republican candidates love Uber

Marco Rubio points toward a sharing-economy future. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

Innovative businesses being held back by outdated regulations is a favorite conservative theme. And Uber makes an ideal poster child for this message. Uber was enabled by the invention of smartphones, and it solved a concrete problem — slow and unreliable taxi service — that many people encountered in their regular lives.

Taxi companies and their allies in city government are cast as the villains in the Uber morality play, trying to impose burdensome and arbitrary requirements on a company that had invented a better way of doing things.

Republican candidates for president have talked about Uber a lot on the campaign trail.

Jeb Bush made a point of riding in an Uber earlier this month during a campaign stop in San Francisco. Marco Rubio has been touting Uber for over a year, and he tweeted in support of Uber during this week's confrontation with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Ted Cruz compared himself to Uber last December, saying he hoped to disrupt Washington in the same way Uber has disrupted the taxi business. Rand Paul tweeted in defense of Uber earlier this month, and Scott Walker signed Uber-friendly legislation in May.

It's natural for conservatives to side with a business fighting regulators, but the inclination to highlight this particular business has a lot to do with political demographics. Republican voters tend to be older and more rural than Democrats. Uber has a young and disproportionately urban customer base. If Republicans can turn Uber into a salient example of government regulation, it could broaden the GOP's demographic appeal without compromising on conservative principles.

Via: Vox

Continue Reading....

Clinton = Higher Taxes

In An Effort To Appease Liberals "Hungry" For Redistribution, Clinton Will Pledge To Raise Taxes

CLINTON IS EXPECTED TO REVERSE HER POSITION ON THE CAPITAL-GAINS TAX RATE TO APPEASE HER PARTY'S LIBERAL BASE

Today, Hillary Clinton Will Release A Policy Proposal On Capital-Gains During A Speech In New York City. "Instead, Clinton is said to propose multiple levels of long-term. For assets held at least two years, the tax would be more than 28 percent, the Wall Street Journal reports, up from today's 23.8 percent. If assets are held for five years, the rate would be lower than that. (We may learn how much lower on Friday, when Clinton is set to release a tax-policy blueprint.)" (Paula Dwyer, Op-Ed, "Clinton Would Complicate The Capital-Gains Tax,"Bloomberg, 7/23/15)

According To The Clinton Campaign, The Goal Is To "Change Behavior, Not Increase Revenue." "The campaign didn't estimate how much in additional taxes the proposal would raise. The official said the primary goal is to change behavior, not increase revenue." (Laura Meckler and John D. McKinnon, "Clinton To Push Revamp Of Capital-Gains Tax Rates," The Wall Street Journal, 7/20/15)

Clinton's Adjusted Rates Would Be Higher Than The 28 Percent Proposed Earlier Than Obama And Perhaps Be As High As The Regular Income-Tax Rate . "For those held just a little longer-likely two or three years-the current capital-gains tax rate of 23.8% for top earners would rise. The Clinton rate, which hasn't been finalized, would be higher than the 28% President Barack Obama proposed earlier this year for the highest earners … The Clinton campaign hasn't ruled out taxing such investments at the regular income-tax rate.." (Laura Meckler and John D. McKinnon, "Clinton To Push Revamp Of Capital-Gains Tax Rates," The Wall Street Journal, 7/20/15)

Clinton's Proposal Is A "Change Of Heart" From Her Previous Position On The Capital-Gains Tax

Clinton "Hinted" At Her "Change Of Heart" On Capital Gains Earlier This Year."Clinton, who will say on Monday that the best way to increase the size of the U.S. economy is to increase middle-class people's incomes according to her campaign, hinted at her change of heart on capital gains at a campaign event in April." (Luciana Lopez, "Clinton To Propose Capital Gains Tax Reform: Campaign Document," Reuters, 7/13/15)

Clinton's Plan "Appears To Be A Shift" From Her Position In 2008 When She "Vowed Not To Raise Capital Gains Tax Rates Above 20 Percent If At All.""Clinton's plan to revamp such rates appears to be a shift from her position in 2008, when she last sought the party's nomination and vowed not to raise capital gains tax rates above 20 percent, if at all." (Susan Heavey, "Clinton's Capital Gains Tax Plan To Urge Focus On Long-Term Growth," Reuters , 7/20/15)

• Clinton Said That She Wouldn't Raise The Capital Gains Tax Rate Above 20 Percent, "If I Raised It At All." ABC NEWS' CHARLIE GIBSON: "The question was about capital gains tax. Would you say, 'No, I'm not going to raise capital gains taxes?'" CLINTON: "I wouldn't raise it above the 20 percent if I raised it at all. I would not raise it above what it was during the Clinton administration." (Hillary Clinton, 2008 Democratic Primary Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)

During A 2008 Primary Debate Clinton Stood By Legislation Signed By Bill Clinton That Lowered The Maximum Taxation Rate On Capital Gains From 28 Percent To 20 Percent. "In a primary debate that year, she stood by legislation signed by her husband, Bill Clinton, in 1997 when he was president. That law lowered the maximum taxation rate on capital gains, which are the profits made on selling capital assets such as shares or real estate, from 28 percent to 20 percent. In 2003, the maximum rate was lowered further still to 15 percent under President George W. Bush." (Luciana Lopez, "Clinton To Propose Capital Gains Tax Reform: Campaign Document," Reuter s, 7/13/15)

Clinton Claimed She Was "Agnostic" About A Tax Rate Change On Capital Gains And Dividends That Was Enacted In 2003. BLOOMBERG ANCHOR: "Are there any of the President's tax cuts that you would maintain, let me ask you one specific, the 15 percent tax rate [on] capital gains and dividends, very important to folks on Wall Street right now, folks right now in your state." CLINTON: "Oh I know, I'm asked about it often, and, what I tell the people who ask me is look, I'm agnostic about that." (Bloomberg News' "Taking Stock," 3/15/07)

Clinton's Tax Hike Proposal Is Just Another Way She Is Trying To Meet The Demands Of Liberals Who Are "Hungry For Social Spending And Redistribution"

By Raising Capital Gains Tax Rates, Clinton Will Meet The "Key Demands Of Liberals Who Are Hungry For Social Spending And Redistribution." " By raising tax rates on medium-term capital gains, Clinton will raise a bunch of tax revenue, and she will raise it overwhelmingly from high-income individuals. These are key demands of liberals, who are hungry for social spending and redistribution." (Matthew Yglesias, "Hillary Clinton's Capital Gains Tax Reform, Explained," Vox, 7/20/15)

Clinton, In A "Pander" To The Left, Is Hoping To "Demonstrate To Elizabeth Warren's Fan Base That She Can Soak The Rich And Limit Wall Street's Winnings." "She wants to discourage short-term thinking (that's good), raise tax revenue to fund new government programs (unlikely), and demonstrate to Elizabeth Warren's fan base that she can soak the rich and limit Wall Street's winnings, too (a pander)." (Paula Dwyer, Op-Ed, "Clinton Would Complicate The Capital-Gains Tax,"Bloomberg, 7/23/15)

ECONOMISTS HAVE EXPRESSED "DEEP SKEPTICISM" TOWARDS CLINTON'S PLAN AND SAID IT WON'T BENEFIT WAGES OR IMPACT CORPORATE INVESTMENT

Former Senior Tax Economist For Bill Clinton's Administration, Lenoard Burman, Said His General Impression Of Clinton's Tax Plan Was "Deep Skepticism." "'My general impression is deep skepticism,' Leonard Burman, director of the non-partisan think tank the Tax Policy Center and a former senior tax economist in President Bill Clinton's Treasury Department, said in a telephone interview." (Jonathan Allen, "Clinton's Capital Gains Tax Plan Aims At Long-Term Investment," Reuters , 7/23/15)

• Burman: "I Don't See The Logic" In Clinton's Tax Hike Proposal. "'Frankly, I don't see the logic in trying to encourage people to hold assets for longer than they want to,' he said. He said there were already strong incentives for individuals to hold onto assets, and the dividends they can produce, for a long time. He also noted that vast amounts of assets are held by entities, including non-profits, foreigners and retirement funds, not subject to the individual capital gains tax. (Jonathan Allen, "Clinton's Capital Gains Tax Plan Aims At Long-Term Investment," Reuters , 7/23/15)

Empirical Studies "Struggle" To Confirm The Idea That Tax Rates On Investment Income Are An "Important Driver" Of Investment Activity. "Empirical studies also struggle to confirm the idea that tax rates on investment income are an important driver of real investment activity. A recent, statistically sophisticated study of the 2003 dividend tax cut by Danny Yagan, for example, finds that 'the tax cut caused zero change in corporate investment.'" (Matthew Yglesias, "Hillary Clinton's Capital Gains Tax Reform, Explained," Vox, 7/20/15)

"Changing How Things Are Taxed At The Investor Level Will Make No Difference At All" To The "Time Horizons Over Which The Corporations Will Invest.""Changing how things are taxed at the investor level will make no difference at all to that: nor will they make any difference at all to the time horizons over which the corporations invest. This is a non-solution based on an ignorance how the markets work. How unusual that Hillary should fall for it…"(Tim Worstall, "Hillary Clinton's Capital Gains Changes Won't Make A Blind Bit Of Difference To Short-Termism,"Forbes , 7/20/15)

Economists Christophe Chamley And Kenneth Judd Concluded That The "Socially Optimal Level Of Investment Taxation Is Zero" And That "People Who Derive All Their Income From Wages Benefit In The Long Run From Not Taxing Capital Income." "The economics-y reason is a result in theoretical macroeconomics stemming from work by Christophe Chamley and Kenneth Judd that shows that under appropriate assumptions, the socially optimal level of investment taxation is zero. The result involves a lot of math, but the intuitive idea is that the less you tax investments in capital goods, the more capital goods you get. And the more capital goods you have, the higher your wages will be. Consequently, even people who derive all their income from wages benefit in the long run from not taxing capital income." (Matthew Yglesias, "Hillary Clinton's Capital Gains Tax Reform, Explained,"Vox, 7/20/15)

Clinton's Capital-Gains Tax Rate Hikes Are "Not Going To Make A Blind Bit Of Difference" In Countering The Short Term Nature Of Decision Making In The Marketplace. "The aim being to make people invest for the longer term, and counter what is seen as the dreadfully short term nature of most decision making in the marketplace. It's not going to make a blind bit of difference of course for the suggestion itself ignores a very basic economic fact about investment markets: they are forward looking." (Tim Worstall, "Hillary Clinton's Capital Gains Changes Won't Make A Blind Bit Of Difference To Short-Termism," Forbes , 7/20/15)

Via: GOP

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] CBS This Morning Presses De Blasio from Left on Uber, Economy

Liberal New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio sat down for a friendly interview on Thursday’s CBS This Morning and the three hosts repeatedly pushed him from the left on a variety of issues ranging from his fight with Uber to his relationship with Pope Francis on climate change and income inequality

.  The majority of the interview focused on de Blasio’s ongoing fight with ride sharing company Uber, and his efforts to regulate it like taxis and CBS’s Charlie Rose complained ”it seems like Uber whenever it's challenged simply gets its way in the end.”

After the New York major whined that Uber was allegedly contributing to congestion and pollution throughout the city which, in his view, demanded the city regulate the company, Norah O’Donnell wondered “why did you cave?” and allow Uber to expand.

Later in the segment, Rose touted de Blasio’s recent meeting with Pope Francis where the two discussed climate change and rather than press his guest on the liberal views the two share the CBS host merely asked de Blasio to “ [t]ell us about” the meeting. 

After de Blasio called Pope Francis the “strongest moral voice in the world” Rose eagerly wondered “what is his impact on climate change?” and gave the New York City mayor another opportunity to tout his liberal views.Rose then pointed out how the pope “raised questions about income inequality...And, in fact, about capitalism per se.” 

Nowhere in the segment did Rose or his CBS co-hosts bother to press de Blasio on his liberal views regarding climate change or “income inequality” and whether not his solutions would damage the economy. Instead, Rose wondered how the mayor could push Hillary Clinton far enough to the left in order to earn his endorsement: 

So what does Hillary Clinton have to do to convince you to support her because that’s been one of the issue you say you’re waiting and seeing?  

De Blasio stressed the need for liberal cities to provide mandatory paid sick leave and an raise their minimum wages which Rose found the perfect time to ask yet another lefty question: “Will there be $15 minimum wage in New York?”

The New York mayor argued that he was “working toward” a $15 minimum wage which prompted Norah O’Donnell to wonder “why not endorse Bernie Sanders?” 

In the past, CBS This Morning has done its best to help tout the liberal agenda of de Blasio. During an appearance on May 20, the three hosts gave him an unchallenged platform as Charlie Rose declared him one of the “leaders of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.” 

Via: CBS This Morning

Continue Reading....

Americans Fleeing Pricey Cities as Foreigners Rush In

New York City, Los Angeles, Honolulu: They're all places you would think would be popular destinations for Americans. So it might come as a surprise that these are among the cities U.S. residents are fleeing in droves.

Twenty metropolitan areas among the 100 most populous in the United States lost the greatest share of local people to other parts of the country between July 2013 and July 2014, according to a Bloomberg News analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. 

The New York City area ranked second, just behind  El Paso, Texas. New York lost about a net 163,000 U.S. residents, closely followed by a couple surrounding suburbs in Connecticut. Honolulu ranked fourth and Los Angeles ranked 14th.

Interestingly, these are also the cities with some of the highest net inflows of people from outside the country. That gives many of these cities a steadily growing population, despite the net exodus of people moving within the U.S. 

What's going on here?

Michael Stoll, a professor of public policy and urban planning at the University of California Los Angeles, has an idea. Soaring home prices are pushing local residents out and scaring away potential new ones from other parts of the country, he said.

As Americans leave, people from abroad move in to these bustling cities to fill the vacant low-skilled jobs. They are able to do so by living in what Stoll calls "creative housing arrangements" in which they pack six to eight individuals, or two to four families, into one apartment or home. It's an arrangement that most Americans just aren't willing to pursue, and even many immigrants decide it's not for them as time goes by, he said. 

In addition, the growing demand for high-skilled workers, especially in the technology industry, brought foreigners who possess those skills to the U.S.  They are compensated appropriately and can afford to live in these high-cost areas, just like Americans who hold similar positions. One example is Washington, D.C., which had a lot of people from abroad arriving to soak up jobs in the growing tech-hub, Stoll said. 

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading....

Mayor de Blasio: No more Trump deals in NYC future

New York City's mayor has had enough Trump, thank you.

During a press conference on Monday, Mayor Bill de Blasio said that while he's uncertain whether the city can break several existing contracts with the Republican presidential hopeful, one thing is clear: There will be no future deals between the Big Apple and Trump.

Via: CNN Money

Continue Reading.....

‘No freaking way!’ Teachers revolt over union’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton

WASHINGTON, D.C. – For a union built on democracy, activist teachers are wondering how the American Federation of Teachers could have possibly endorsed Hillary Clinton for president without them knowing about it.

Candi Peterson, Washington (D.C.) Teachers’ Union, pennedan article at Common Dreams in which several die-hard union activists appeared to be utterly befuddled by the national union’s sudden announcement.

Chicago activist Katie Osgood says, “I know many AFT members too and have not heard one person polled either.” The union claimed it polled members on their opinions.

According to the calculation of “Mr. Stevens,” only .04 percent of members were surveyed.

New York City teacher Arthur Goldstein tells the news site, “…AFT Link says they used telephone town halls and a web-based survey, I didn’t even know existed.”

Mary Ahern calls the endorsement “B.S.”

Phil Soreneson tweeted to AFT president Rhonda “Randi” Weingarten, “glad I’m NEA, u don’t speak for me, u just made teachers’ look politically inept. Thanks for nothing,” according to Common Dreams.

Others were equally incensed.

The union’s move comes as Sanders is surging in the polls in key states and drawing huge crowds.

The AFT’s national endorsement is also likely a plan to negate any local teachers union endorsements.

The union of Sanders’ home state — an affiliate of the larger National Education Association — has already endorsed the Vermont senator.

“We are not used to getting involved in presidential primaries particularly early,” Vermont-NEA spokesman Darren Allen tells the Burlington Free Press.

“It shouldn’t be a surprise that this union is heartily behind Bernie’s message.”

“We’ve never had Bernie running for president,” adds Martha Allen, state union president.

Via: EAG

Continue Reading....