Uber Shows How To Break Crony Capitalism

The taxi medallion scam is one of the worst examples of crony capitalism.  Uber (and some other app-driven services) are in the process of defeating the scam in New York and, apparently, in many other places as well.  It's about time.

The scam is simple.  A city issues a limited number of so-called "medallions," which convey exclusive rights to pick up passengers on the streets, and often at airports as well.  I have never heard anybody articulate a good rationale for why the number of medallions should be limited.  Fake rationales include preventing "destructive" competition (don't we have that in every industry?) and so-called environmental concerns (always articulated by those holding medallions whose only value lies in artificial scarcity). 

I have a long-time friend, call him R, who is head of one of those lenders that specialize in loans for the purchase of taxi medallions.  Twenty or so years ago I went for the first time to a fundraising event for a candidate for City office, and there was R.  Since then, I haven't been to many fundraising events for candidates for local offices, but at the few I have attended, somehow R was always there.  I can't say I was surprised when Bloomberg News reported last month that the medallion taxi industry had contributed over $500,000 to the campaign of Bill de Blasio for Mayor.  Probably, they contributed that amount or close to it to other candidates as well.  Other than the City employee unions and real estate interests, the taxi medallion guys have been right at the top of the political contribution heap.

Back when I first found out from R what business he was in (I think this was in the 90s), I expressed some very severe skepticism.  From there, the conversation went something like this:

R:  It's literally the best industry to lend in.  We have not had a single default in decades.

Me:  That will be true until the day that all the value suddenly disappears.  Basically, all the value comes from the artificial scarcity.  One day that will disappear, and the medallions will suddenly be worthless all at once.

R:  They've been saying that for decades.  Meanwhile we are diversifying to some degree.  

Since this was before this blog recorded all my thoughts, I don't have an official record of my prediction.  However, it is now rapidly coming true.

For the past few years, New York City taxi medallions have been trading for over $1 million each.  With over 13,000 medallions issued, this has represented a value of over $13 billion --a good measure also of the value of the inconvenience inflicted on people in neighborhoods where taxis have been systematically unavailable for decades due to the corrupt crony system.  But with the advent of Uber, the value of the medallions has suddenly plummeted. This article from CNN Money in July reports that the value of a medallion is off by some 40% from its peak just last year.

And that's if you can sell a medallion at all.  Many reports indicate that the market has gone dead as lenders have been spooked and refuse to lend. 

When the medallion market first started to plummet, de Blasio and his friends on the City Council (all takers of industry cash) floated several proposals to put the reins on Uber, including, for example, a limit on Uber licenses.  But when the reports started to come out about the unbelievable amounts of political contributions they had received from the medallion taxi industry, suddenly they were in a tough spot.  Turns out that our "progressive" Mayor and City Council would happily sell their outer-borough constituents down the river, inflicting them with $13 billion of inconvenience, and handing the $13 billion to a handful of cronies, in return for a paltry few million of political contributions.

The latest news is that de Blasio and the Council are refusing to help out their medallion-owning friends, so the medallion owners are now pinning their hopes on a litigation contending that existing law restricting non-medallion owners to only "pre-arranged travel" effectively outlaws the Uber model.  Good luck with that.  Of course de Blasio and the Council will gladly help out their medallion-owning friends as soon as nobody is looking; but it seems that people are going to be looking at this one, at least for a while.  Now, will anybody start to pay attention to, for example, the "green energy" scam?

Via: Manhattan Contrarian

Continue Reading.....

[OPINION] Hillary Clinton’s flaws are being obscured by Trump-smoke

Aug. 28–If nothing else, Donald Trump is proving to be a fabulous smokescreen for Hillary Clinton.

While the real estate mogul bloviates and offends large swaths of the American public, Clinton rides on as the front-runner in the Democratic presidential primary, Trump-smoke obscuring her own significant flaws.

Just yesterday, for example, at a campaign stop in Ohio, Clinton absurdly compared several GOPpresidential candidates’ “extreme views about women” to the views of terrorist groups.

She said: “Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups. We expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world. But it’s a little hard to take coming from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States.”

I happen to share Clinton’s views on abortion and other women’s health issues, but that’s an uncalled for and offensive comparison to make. The Republican National Committee swiftly called for an apology, saying in a statement: “For Hillary Clinton to equate her political opponents to terrorists is a new low for her flailing campaign. She should apologize immediately for her inflammatory rhetoric.”

I agree. And don’t say, “But look at all the offensive things being said on the Republican side.” That doesn’t matter. Two wrongs — or 20 wrongs, or whatever — don’t make a right.

Clinton has every opportunity right now, with the Republican candidates flailing about trying to manage Trump’s xenophobic squawking, to keep to the high road. Comparing your opponents to terrorists is as low-brow as it is inaccurate.

Of course there are other issues as well. Clinton has been dismissive of the legitimate questions and concerns surrounding her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state, seemingly missing the fact that for some of us it’s not the legality of what she did but rather the overall air of dodginess.

She has repeatedly made light of the situation, once saying she started a Snapchat account because the “messages disappear all by themselves” and, when talking about whether her private server was wiped clean, saying, “What? Like with a cloth or something?”

She seems to be dialing back the cavalier attitude now, but the damage has already been done, and it appears substantial. A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday found this: “‘Liar’ is the first word that comes to mind more than others in an open-ended question when voters think of Clinton.”

And 61 percent of respondents say Clinton “is not honest and trustworthy,” a record low for her.

That’s a rather pitiful starting point for the person many Democrats seem to believe is their most qualified candidate.

It’s easy to look at the chaos in the GOP primary and say, “Wow, is that really the best they can do?”

But if you peer through the dust Trump keeps stirring up, you can get a look at the lackluster Democratic primary and say the same thing.

rhuppke@tribpub.com

Via: Daily Witness

Continue Reading......

[VIDEO] Unleashing Prosperity with Stephen Moore

FreedomWorks Senior Economic Contributor Stephen Moore discuss his new role and partnership with FreedomWorks and our new plan to Unleash Prosperity in America.

Via: Freedom Works

[EDITORIAL] Elites v. Patriots

TPATH~ The root causes of our approaching national demise may be many but most could have been averted had any branch of government honored their oaths of office to preserve and protect our Constitution. While classrooms across America teach that the Constitution is archaic and no longer adequate for a modern people, its preamble sets the stage for an equality between "We the People" and those in government. That was unique when it was first penned and remains unique to this very day. The concept of those that govern do so by the consent of the governed and is expressed in our Constitution as first set forth in our Declaration of Independence. It states: "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This principle of equality is also set forth in the New Testament (Romans 2:11 and Acts 10:34) that tell us God is not a respecter of persons. It is this very principle of establishing true equality among our citizens that was designed to curtail the emergence of a ruling class in our Constitutional Republic. And - it is this principle of equality that is under assault and has unleashed a pandemic of elitists' attitudes cloaked in anesthetizing speeches that sound good to the ear but mean nothing when analyzed by the brain.

If it can be argued that America has undergone a soft coup de tat that empowered a ruling class of global cabalists, it can also be argued that the popularity of the GOPs non-establishment presidential candidates represents the beginnings of a soft counter-coup. Whether or not this soft counter-coup will prevail rests upon the ability of We the People to resist the propaganda that will most certainly bombard the airwaves over the 2016 election cycle. And the people's resistance will in turn rest on their ability to stay informed of the facts and not be swayed by some of the most effective spinmeisters the world has ever known. Once again, there are several Bible verses that tell us we are to be informed, and not being informed will result in our demise (Hosea 4:6; Job 36:12; Prov. 5:23 and 10:21). This ability to separate fact from the fictional spin will be especially challenged by the $100,000,000 Jeb Bush has raised to date, the deep pockets of the Clinton Foundation, and wealthy, power-crazed men like George Soros. In this war between the establishment cabalists and the patriots, the battle strategies will not be designed around tanks or nuclear warheads. They will be cloaked in political speak and cunning phrases that can fool even the most ardent constitutionalist – if possible.

But how does America decode the disingenuous speak of the career politician from the true American patriot? They look for the facts and identify the double standards. For example, politicians who hold the citizenry to one standard but exempt themselves from the same standard, i.e.:

The swift investigation and sentencing of General Petraeus for compromising classified information with his biographer and girlfriend, resulting in a $100,000 fine, two years of probation, and forcing the General to retire. Compare this to Hillary Clinton's email scandals, currently revealing over 300 security issues in just a small sampling of her recovered emails. Perhaps General Petraeus should have considered running for the presidency instead of resigning.

On the subject of emails, elite NY firefighter and U.S. Marine Corp. Forces Reserve Major Jason Brezler is facing a less than honorable discharge for emailing a single classified report in a desperate effort to save the lives of three marines who were in danger. Brezler is being prosecuted (or should I say persecuted?) for breaking security protocol by sending classified information over an insecure line. Once again, compare this to the situation with Hillary Clinton, who conducted all national security communications over an insecure line.

Of course there is Attorney General Eric Holder's refusal to produce documents requested during a congressional investigation regarding the "Fast and Furious" scandal and claiming "executive privilege", which is the administration's way of saying they are above the law. Can you imagine what would happen to you if you so defied a congressional investigation?

Let's not forget that Congress is not bound by the Security and Exchange Commission's regulations and laws regarding insider trading. Martha Stewart certainly wasn't able to claim an exemption for something far more trivial.

While on the subject of Congress, consider ObamaCare – a health care debacle that was seriously opposed by the American people and passed by Congress without so much as these elitists having the decency to even bother reading it. Then, after it is passed, what do they do? They exempt themselves and their staffs from living under the same laws they have pressed upon us.

What about all the Second Amendment infringements that state legislators and governors have passed, arguing that guns are the fault of the rise in violent crimes around the country? How many of these legislators pack heat to protect their families and themselves but deny us the same protection?

Or what about the re-election of John Boehner as Speaker of the House after a reported 60 percent of Republican voters urged their representatives to vote against Boehner? With the exception of 25 congressmen who listened to the wishes of their constituents, is it reasonable to ask if the other members of the House of Representatives really "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?

Of course I could probably fill a library with books written to document the unfulfilled campaign promises by elected politicians – like the revocation of ObamaCare and the securing of our borders. But I could fill even more libraries with books documenting the unconstitutional decisions rendered by our judges. In my home state of New Jersey alone, decisions that boldly proclaim that the judges understand that their decision is unconstitutional but will rule adversely anyway are mind-boggling.

The list of double-standards could go on and on but most reading this will already be aware of many additional items that qualify. The point is that America has enabled the emergence of these elitists. However, there is good news. America seems to be waking up. The double-talk of Jeb Bush regarding his stance on Common Core didn't score him any polling points with the public. Although his answer was well-rehearsed and well-crafted, its disingenuousness did not escape the eyes of the now alert public. The identifiable pattern continues with the full-of- himself Governor Chris Christie, who in the past has redefined sin, explains away NJ's troubles as resting on the shoulders of a Democratic legislature, and defends his record of violating the Fourth Amendment, as he sees fit of course. This behavior is to be expected from the ruling class elitists whose actions prove that they believe they are above the law and the public is too stupid to look beyond their talking points. (Many thanks to Donald Trump for restoring the word "stupid" to our vernacular.)

The so-called phenomenon of Donald Trump, Dr. Carson, and Carly Fiorina may not be a phenomenon at all. It may just be the longed-for evidence that the sleeping giant once known as the silent majority is no longer swallowing the sweet-talking lies of career politicians. But the battle for the heart and soul of America is far from over. And if my analysis is correct, we can expect a smear campaign launched against all of the would-be citizen representatives - the likes of which we have never seen before. In this case, skeletons will not just emerge from the candidates' closets, they will be conjured up and paid for by the once all-powerful ruling class. So my advice, America: don't fall for it. It's time to rally the troops and circle the wagons. The elitist cabal will not go down without a fight. Are you up to the challenge?

Via: Sonoran News

Continue Reading.....

Yes, Those Shocking ObamaCare Rate Hikes Are For Real

H

ealth Care: When insurers requested huge rate hikes for their 2016 ObamaCare plans, we were told not to worry because state regulators would force them down. But that's not happening. Death spiral, anyone?

In Alaska, the state regulator approved a 39.6% rate increase for Moda Health, and Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska got a 38.7% hike.

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee asked for and got a 36.3% boost in premiums. Oregon's insurance commissioner approved a 25.6% increase for Moda, the biggest insurer on its ObamaCare exchange. In Kansas, ObamaCare enrollees will face increases of up to 25.4%.

In the pre-ObamaCare days, rate hikes of this magnitude, no matter how rare, would have been cited as proof positive of the need for ObamaCare-type changes. But these eye-popping jumps are showing up across the country, and ObamaCare itself is to blame.

The law's mixture of heavy-handed market regulations, mandated benefits, taxes and fees have sharply increased the cost of insurance, with no end in sight.

Undaunted, ObamaCare backers say that in many states, regulators succeeded in cutting back on some requests, and that premiums in some states didn't go up all that much. But calling a 14% increase a victory because it wasn't 21% isn't a victory for those still faced with a substantially more expensive product.

Fact is, insurers had real claims data to back up their rate hikes, giving regulators little wiggle room. When New Mexico refused to let that state's Blue Cross Blue Shield raise premiums enough to cover its costs, Blue Cross decided to pull out, which will force 35,000 ObamaCare enrollees to find another provider.

In some states, regulators themselves forced premiums up more than insurers requested. Oregon's commissioner told Health Net to raise its premiums by 34.8% instead of the 9% the company had in mind.

In Florida, insurers asked for rate hikes averaging 8.6%. The increase finally approved was 9.5%.

For those eligible for tax subsidies, these premium hikes won't matter much. But for the many who aren't, it means ObamaCare is putting affordable insurance even further out of reach. That's a pretty big failure for a law that is officially titled the "Affordable Care Act."

Via: Investors Business Daily

Continue Reading......

[COMMENTARY] Contentions Hillary Clinton Breaks Silence on Obama’s Decimation of the Democrats

If there was one clear takeaway from Hillary Clinton’s address to the party officials assembled in Minneapolis for the Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting, it was they are certainly Ready for Hillary. Sure, her largest applause lines were for the accomplishments of President Barack Obama or her husband (the majority of which she is now on the record opposing). Still, her workmanlike speech accomplished its modest goal, and the crowd did appear warm to their party’s presidential frontrunner. But while much of Clinton’s address was unremarkable cheerleading for Team Blue, one aspect of her speech was particularly noteworthy. In a rare moment of tough love for her fellow Democrats, Clinton noted that their party has been utterly decimated at the state-level. What she declined to note, however, was that this condition would yield years of hardship when the Democratic Party looks to a farm team that doesn’t exist. A generation of Democrats that were to come of age in the next decade simply will not be there. What’s more, it was Barack Obama who presided over this culling.

“The first thing I would say is we need to elect more Democrats. Okay?” Clinton told a group of Democrats in Iowa earlier this week. “You can’t have a loss like having Tom Harkin retire, and not be really motivated to not get the other Democrats in there who will stand with me.” Apparently, you can. Harkin was just one of the Democrats who were replaced by a Republican in 2014 – in his case, freshman Senator Joni Ernst.

Clinton would not expand on the nature of the Democratic Party’s predicament. Perhaps it was simply too painful to do so. 2014 saw the Democrats lose nine U.S. Senate seats and resulted in a 54-seat GOP majority in the upper chamber. The Republicans confounded political observers who presumed that the party remained overextended in the House following their 2010 landslide victories. The Republicans entered 2015 with 247 seats, up from the 234-seat majority they had heading into last year’s midterms and the largest majority for the party since 1947. But the federal legislature is largely composed of politicians who cut their teeth in state-level legislative bodies, and it was on the local level that Democrats saw their influence contract dramatically.

When Barack Obama took office in 2008, he did so on the crest of a pro-Democratic wave – the second consecutive liberal electoral tsunami – that swept hundreds of Democratic politicians into office along with him. By 2009, Democrats controlled 62 of the nation’s 99 legislative chambers. Come January of 2015, Republicans controlled 69 of 99 of state-level legislative houses – a handful of which were secured when state legislators, sensing the wind’s shifting direction, switched parties. At the gubernatorial level, the scale of the wave was most acutely felt. Republicans were expected to lose at least four executive mansions. Instead, they lost only one and picked up four new governorships for a total of 31. By 2015, 32 lieutenant governors and 29 secretaries of state all called themselves Republicans. In 23 states, Republicans controlled all the elected branches of government.

“It is not just enough to elect more members of the Senate and more members of the House in Washington,” Clinton told her fellow Democrats earlier this week. “We need more members in the state Senate. We need more members in the state house.” But the painful scope of this project is so staggering that even Hillary Clinton could not bear to be fully honest about it.

The former secretary of state revisited the themes of her Iowa address in Minneapolis on Friday. “I’m not taking a single primary voter or caucus-goer for granted. I’m building an organization in all 50 states and territories, with hundreds of thousands of volunteers who will help Democrats win races up and down the ticket. Not just the presidential campaign,” she said. “Look, in 2010, Republicans routed us on redistricting, not because they won Congress but because they won state legislatures.”

We can be charitable and presume that Clinton meant that, because of the GOP’s victories in 2010, the party went on to control much of the reapportionment process in 2011 – at least, in those states that continued to have partisan redistricting commissions. But the scale of the GOP’s victories in 2014 (you can’t gerrymander a state) are indicative of the truism that all the cleverly-drawn districts in the world cannot overcome a decisive mandate from a critical mass of voters.

Republicans were in a fortunate position when decennial reapportionment took place after the 2010 elections, and they took great advantage of their position. They did so, in fact, in the same way Democrats had for generations when their party commanded substantial state-level and federal legislative majorities for much of the 20th Century. But pro-GOP maps aren’t the only things keeping Democratic majorities down. By virtue of the “inefficient clustering” of Democratic voters, as Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman observed, Democrats are going to have trouble converting their popular vote share into a proportionate percentage of seats.

“The way that the districts are packed and the increasing tendency for like-minded people to cluster together means that Democrats have to win upwards of 55 percent of the overall House vote to come close to claiming a majority of the House seats,” theWashington Post’s Chris Cillizza summarized. Hillary Clinton might have coattails if she were to win the White House, but it’s extremely unlikely that the will be that long; particularly given the fact that she is seeking a historically atypical third consecutive term for her party. When the president governs as Barack Obama has, flouting the will of the electorate and enraging his opponents far more than he energized his base (the Affordable Care Act and his unilateral executive actions on immigration, to name two catalysts), it invites the kind of routs that the Democrats experienced in 2010 and 2014.

It may be comforting to contend that the game is rigged and Democrats would do better politically if only the winds of fate had prevented Republicans from controlling the redistricting process, but it’s a fable. Hillary Clinton is taking a step toward being honest about her party’s predicament with its members, but she cannot be entirely forthright about the scale of the problem without indicting Barack Obama’s approach to governance. That is not happening any time soon. Democrats appreciate Barack Obama’s aggressive style, and they have not yet come around to the realization that it has put their party in the worst position it has been in since prior to the New Deal. Hillary Clinton is taking the first steps toward diagnosing her party’s malady, but she cannot accurately prescribe a remedy without alienating the voters she needs to win the nomination.

There will be no emerging from the wilderness anytime soon.

Via: Commentary Magazine

Continue Reading.....

Hillary Clinton’s Watchdog Had Something No Other Secretary Of State Ever Had

One congressional leader is saying there could be a big problem with the group that was tasked with holding Hillary Clinton accountable during her time as secretary of state.

Senate Judiciary Chariman Chuck Grassley sent a letter to Chair of Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency as well as Secretary of State John Kerry with questions about the State Department’s inspector general during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

The State Department IG had an interim head for more than five years, and Grassley want to know whether Clinton was involved in keeping the position temporary.

Grassley called the absence “egregious” and pointed out that the temporary IG was there for Clinton’s entire term, making her the only secretary of state to never sit under a full-fledged watchdog since the IG was created in 1957.

“Every agency needs a permanent, independent inspector general,” Grassley said in a statement. “The position is too important to assign to a placeholder.  An acting inspector general doesn’t have the mandate to lead, and he or she might not be able to withstand pushback from an agency that doesn’t want to cooperate with oversight.”

Grassley has requested a slew of record related to the temporary inspector, Harold Geisel, and why he was in charge for so long. He also pointed out that in the short time since a permanent inspector general was put in place, substantive revelations have come out about a top Hillary aide inappropriately influencing an ambassador nomination.

“The Obama Administration should answer for why it allowed that to happen,” Grassley said in a statement. “There’s been no transparency on the reason for the lack of an appointment for so long. “We’ll never know the extent of the damage to good governance caused by this lapse, but it’s fair to say some of the problems exposed lately probably could have been prevented with a permanent inspector general in place.”

Via Daily Caller

Continue Reading.....

This Government Jobs Program Is Ineffective, Ridden With Crime

A job training program for disadvantaged youth—sounds like a good thing. Except maybe when it is plagued by violent crime and doesn’t boost participants’ wages or help them secure full-time jobs.

Each year, Congress spends in excess of $1.65 billion on Job Corps, even though Department of Labor researchfound years ago that Job Corps does not provide the skills and training necessary to substantially raise the wages of participants.

Criminal Misconduct

The Washington Post has reported on the extent of violence within Job Corps. This summer at a Miami Job Corps center, 17-year-old Jose Santos Amaya-Guardado was lured to a prepared gravesite by 20-year-old Kaheem Arbelo and three other students.

After being hacked to death with a machete, Arbelo and his accomplices placed Amaya-Guardado in the grave and set his body on fire.

In St. Louis, a 20-year-old student shot his Job Corps roommate in the chest. Last year in Oregon, a male security guard pleaded guilty for raping a female student.

Reports of assaults, sex abuse and drug abuse occurred at the McKinney, Texas Job Corps center.

As official policy, Job Corps is supposed to have zero tolerance for violence and illegal drugs. However, a Department of Labor Inspector General report found otherwise.

An audit, released in February, found Job Corps centers frequently failed to report and investigate serious misconduct like assaults and drug abuse that require mandatory expulsion from the program. Further, violent transgressions were often downgraded to avoid holding the perpetrators accountable.

Over the course of two fiscal years, the Inspector General found that over 35,000 serious misconduct incidents occurred at Job Corps centers.

Of these, almost 9,000 (26 percent) incidents were not properly investigated and 5,300 (15 percent) incidents were not investigated within the required timeframe. Since 2009, the Inspector General has consistently found that Job Corps administrators failed to appropriately follow disciplinary policy to address student misconduct.

Ineffective Job Training

Federal job-training programs have a long history of failure. Job Corps is no different. A scientifically rigorous impact evaluation of Job Corps found:

• Compared to non-participants, Job Corps participants were less likely to earn a high school diploma (7.5 percent versus 5.3 percent)
• Compared to non-participants, Job Corps participants were no more likely to attend or complete college
• Four years after participating in the evaluation, the average weekly earnings of Job Corps participants was just $22 more than the average weekly earnings of the control group
• Employed Job Corps participants earned $0.22 more in hourly wages compared to employed control group members.

When it does succeed, the cost is enormous. The Inspector General estimates that each Job Corps participant who is successfully placed into any job costs taxpayers $76,574.

Job Corps fails any reasonable cost-benefit analysis test.

While the idea of Job Corps helping disadvantaged youth learn new job skills to move up the economic ladder may sound nice, the reality doesn’t live up to the promise.

Good intentions are not enough, results matter. Job Corps is not producing a worthwhile return. Moreover, in many cases Job Corps students are subjected to harmful and dangerous environments. Given our $18 trillion and growing debt, Congress should put this wasteful program on the chopping block.

Via: Daily SIgnal

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] CLARKE: ‘SHAME ON THE LEFT’ FOR ‘EXPLOITING’ WDBJ SHOOTING ‘TO PURSUE A POLITICAL AGENDA’

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke (D) declared, “shame on the left” for “exploiting misery and tragedy for a — to pursue a political agenda” on Thursday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.

Clarke said, “Well, shame on the left, shame on the Democrats for once again exploiting misery and tragedy for a — to pursue a political agenda. Shame on the president of the United States to invoke terrorism into this horrific incident that happened in Virginia.”

He continued that the Constitution should not be used in a “knee-jerk” fashion, and is not designed to protect from horrific acts, but is rather designed to “freedom and liberty.”

Clarke then argued that the real solution to crime is to arrest criminals, try them, and then give them the harshest sentence allowed by law. He then criticized President Obama’s pardons of federal prisoners.

He added, “This was a chance for the president, Sean, to bring the country together, and once again, the divider-in-chief goes out and further separates us.”

Clarke also said that people should be more “humble” about their ability to prevent every bad incident, but that improving mental health screening and background checks would help.

He concluded that if the president thinks “this is so easy,” he should eliminate his Secret Service protection so he has to fend for himself. And “I am done asking people in my community to outsource their personal safety to the government.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

Clinton Camp Says One-Fifth of Delegates Secured for Nomination

As Hillary Clinton's campaign seeks to project dominance in a field that could soon include Vice President Joe Biden, her top advisers are touting a decisive edge on a little-discussed metric: superdelegate commitments. 

At the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minneapolis, where Clinton spoke on Friday, senior Clinton campaign officials are claiming that she has already secured one-fifth of the pledges needed to win the Democratic presidential nomination. They come from current and former elected officials, committee officeholders, and other party dignitaries.

The campaign says that Clinton currently has about 130 superdelegates publicly backing her, but a person familiar with recent conversations in Minneapolis said that officials are telling supporters and the undecided in the last few days that private commitments increase that number to more than 440—about 20 percent of the number of delegates she would need to secure the nomination.

ALSO: Why Rank-and-File Democrats Are Hoping Biden Runs

EARLIER: Why Hillary Clinton Decided E-mail Issue Was No Joke

THE REPUBLICANS: Donald Trump Says He Wants to Raise Taxes on Himself

After her speech, Clinton told reporters that her campaign's attention to delegate totals is about ensuring that her support from voters translates into the nomination. “This is really about how you put the numbers together to secure the nomination. As some of you might recall, in 2008 I got a lot of votes but I didn’t get enough delegates. And so I think it’s understandable that my focus is going to be on delegates as well as votes this time,” she said.

Clinton campaign aides at the DNC meeting are privately briefing uncommitted superdelegates there on their mounting totals as a way to coax them to get them aboard the Clinton train now. Campaign manager Robby Mook, chief administrative officer Charlie Baker, political director Amanda Renteria, and state campaigns and political engagement director Marlon Marshall are among the top Clinton aides in attendance.

Final numbers are still in flux, but current estimates peg the total number of delegates to next summer’s presidential nominating convention at about 4,491, meaning that a candidate would need 2,246 to win. The Clinton camp’s claim to more than 440 delegates means she’s already wrapped up the support of more than 60 percent of the approximately 713 superdelegates who, under party rules, are among those who cast votes for the nomination, along with delegates selected by rank-and-file voters in primaries and caucuses beginning next February. Delegate totals won’t be finalized until the DNC determines the number of bonus delegates awarded to states, a party official said.

To be sure, Clinton had a superdelegate edge early against Barack Obama in 2008, and superdelegates are free to change their allegiance at any time between now and next summer's convention. But Clinton is ahead of the pace she had eight years ago in securing these commitments, and her support from the core of the establishment represented by these superdelegates is arguably the most tangible evidence of the difficulty Biden would have overtaking her with a late-starting campaign.

While Clinton said earlier this week that Biden “should have the space and the opportunity to decide what he wants to do,” her campaign is at the same time flexing its muscles to stress the strength of her candidacy. The campaign this week unveiled its first endorsement from a sitting member of the Obama Cabinet, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who just happens to be a former governor of Iowa and who spent Wednesday touring the state with Clinton.

The Clinton campaign also released memos on Thursday touting the strength of its field operations in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. The memos include specific tallies of thousands of volunteer commitments, dozens of paid organizers, and offices opened, including 11 in Iowa.

Barring some major scandal or controversy, and given Hillary and Bill Clinton's long-standing ties to Democratic Party elites, overcoming her superdelegate edge would be quite a challenge for Biden or the major candidates already competing against her for the nomination, including Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

The 300-or-so gap between Clinton's public and private superdelegate commitments derives mostly from state party officials who have yet to reveal their backing of the frontrunner, but have privately pledged to cast their convention votes for the former first lady, according to the person familiar with the campaign's tally.

In their Minneapolis discussions intended to persuade additional uncommitted superdelegates to commit to Clinton, her team is taking care not to mention Biden, but the message is clear: Much of the party establishment is supporting Clinton and the math is in her favor. In 2008, Clinton’s team made a version of this argument before being overtaken by Barack Obama. After Obama took the lead in overall delegates, his campaign began to make a comparable argument about the mathematical inevitability of his ultimate victory.

The attention to delegate counts, Clinton said Friday, was the “result of the lessons that I learned the last time –how important it is to be as well-organized and focused from the very beginning on delegates and those who are superdelegates."

Via: Bloomberg

Continue Reading.....

Legislators Duel Over Impending Gas Tax Hike

Democratic legislators in the state Senate have brought Californians closer to new hikes on the cost of driving their cars. But the committee vote represented little more than a first step in a complex, intense negotiation between Republicans, Democrats and the man trying to stay influential but above the fray — Gov. Jerry Brown.

Republicans have resisted Democrats’ preferred approach, but California’s business lobby has pressed both parties to embrace new taxes and fees. “Last week, business organizations such as the California Chamber of Commerce and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group said any deal should seek to raise at least $6 billion annually by raising gas and diesel taxes and increasing vehicle registration and license fees,” the San Jose Mercury News reported.

Part of the rationale for increasing fees, instead of simply dialing up gas taxes, has centered around the growing popularity of hybrid and electric vehicles in California — and the state’s interest in squeezing revenue out of every car on the road. “We have these Teslas that are being sold and they don’t pay any gas tax,” complained state Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, as CBS Sacramento noted.

Gas in California has remained higher on average than out-of-state, thanks to cap-and-trade fees and the state’s unique environmental rules about the blends of gasoline that must be sold. Current state taxes include an excise tax of 39 cents, between 30 and 42 cents in sales tax, and 10 cents for the cap-and-trade levy, as Watchdog Arena observed.

Brown stays secretive

At a recent news conference that left some observers hungry for detail scratching their heads, Brown refused to hint at a revenue source for the improvements. “I’m not going to say where the revenue’s going to come from, how we’re going to get it,” he said. “We’ll get it done, but I’m not going to put all my cards on the table this morning,” Brown said, according to ABC 7 News.

Brown was joined at the appearance by Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, who signaled separately that negotiations would be tough. “It will be a bumpy road, but our constituents expect us to work together and figure something out,” she toldthe San Francisco Chronicle.

To date, the governor has not let slip whether he would support or oppose a tax hike to make up the difference.

Dueling proposals

That raised the possibility that Republicans might get their way, scrounging up revenue from savings and budgetary jujitsu instead of tax increases. But GOP legislators have been keen on siphoning revenue away from California’s cap-and-trade program, which Brown had availed himself of previously in order to fund construction spending on the state’s much-debated high-speed rail project. That has drawn strenuous objections from Sacramento Democrats.

The current proposal advanced by Assembly Republicans “would raise more than $6 billion a year by eliminating thousands of state employees and unfilled positions and reallocating existing state money, both from the budget and from other projects,” the Chronicle noted, while the plan pushed by Beall would raise billions with a suite of increased gas taxes and fees, including an “annual road access charge of $35 a vehicle,” according to the paper.

It was Beall’s bill that cleared its first committee test in the Senate this week, with Democrats besting Republicans in a party line vote.

For now, just a few broad outlines of an agreement have come into focus. According to the Chronicle, both sides reject the option of a “one-time fix, such as a bond measure that would pile more debt on the state. Any money raised must be earmarked only for road and infrastructure repair, and protected against being siphoned into other parts of the state budget.” Plus, legislators agreed that expenditures should be clearly identified and made public, with some kind of oversight and monitoring built into the arrangement.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

Four Big Problems with the Obama Administration’s Climate Change Regulations

A few years ago, cap-and-trade legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions failed to reach President Barack Obama’s desk because constituents gave their Members an earful that cap and trade would amount to a massive energy tax. When the bill died in Congress, President Obama said that there was more than “one way of skinning a cat,” and here it is.[1]

The Obama Administration has finalized its climate regulations known as the Clean Power Plan. There are plenty of details to uncover in the 1,560-page regulation,[2] the 755-page federal implementation plan,[3] and the 343-page regulatory impact analysis.[4] To summarize, unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are poised to do what America’s elected representatives refused: impose higher energy costs on American families and businesses for meaningless climate benefits.

The following are four early observations that should cause Members of Congress, state politicians, and the general public concern.

1. Higher Energy Prices, Lost Jobs, Weaker Economy

When running for office in 2008, President Obama famously remarked, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”[5] Although that plan ultimately failed to become law, the White House tasked the EPA with creating the regulatory equivalent, placing strict greenhouse gas emissions limits on new power plants and drastic cuts on existing plants. The plan includes greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for each state except for Vermont, Alaska, and Hawaii in hopes of reducing overall power plant emissions to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

The regulations will drastically shift the energy economy away from coal, which provides approximately 40 percent of America’s electricity.[6] Restricting the use of that affordable, reliable energy supply will raise electricity rates, and those higher prices will reverberate through the economy. Businesses will pass higher costs onto consumers, but if a company must absorb the higher costs, it will invest less and expand less. The combination of reduced production and consumption will result in fewer jobs and a weaker economy.[7]

Despite candidate Barack Obama’s admission that cap and trade will raise prices, the Administration is attempting to spin the regulations as a win for the economy. Proponents of the Clean Power Plan argue that as energy prices increase, families and businesses will invest in more energy-efficient products and innovative technologies that will save them money in the long run. Arguing that increasing energy prices with regulations will save money by forcing energy-efficient product purchases is equivalent to cutting employees’ salaries and telling them that they will save money by shopping at Target. Just as the option to save money at Target existed before the pay cut, families and businesses already have an incentive to purchase energy-efficient products. When the government mandates efficiency, it removes that choice and makes consumers worse off.

2. No Climate Benefit, Exaggerated Environmental Benefits

The climate impact of the Clean Power Plan will be meaningless. According to climatologist Paul Knappenberger, “Even if we implement the Clean Power Plan to perfection, the amount of climate change averted over the course of this century amounts to about 0.02 C. This is so small as to be scientifically undetectable and environmentally insignificant.”[8] Climatologist James Hansen, who wants the Administration to do much more to combat climate change, has stated that “the actions are practically worthless.”[9]

The monetized climate benefits the Administration is touting are equally worthless. The EPA says the rule will provide $34 billion to $54 billion in annual environmental benefits after 2030. Yet these numbers are misleading for two reasons.

Social Cost of Carbon. First, the Administration uses “the social cost of carbon” to calculate the climate benefit. The EPA is using three statistical models, known as integrated assessment models, to estimate the value of the social cost of carbon, which is defined as the economic damage that one ton of carbon dioxide emitted today will cause over the next 300 years. The EPA uses the average of the three models to estimate the social cost imposed by climate change—$40 in 2015 and $56 in 2030. However, the models arbitrarily derive a value for the social cost of carbon.[10] Subjecting the models to reasonable inputs for climate sensitivity and discount rates dramatically lowers the figure for the social cost of carbon.

People generally prefer benefits earlier instead of later and costs later instead of earlier. Hence, it is necessary to normalize costs and benefits to a common time. For example, if a 7 percent discount rate makes people indifferent to a benefit now versus a benefit later (e.g., $100 today versus $107 a year from now), then 7 percent is the appropriate discount rate to use. The Administration’s own analysis shows how sensitive the social cost of carbon is to the discount rate.[11] When changed from a 3 percent discount rate to a 5 percent discount rate, the EPA’s $20 billion in projected climate benefits decreases to $6.4 billion—less than the EPA’s egregiously low projection of $8.4 billion in compliance costs.

Co-benefits. The second problem is the EPA’s use of co-benefits in inflating the benefits. The EPA exaggerates the environmental benefits by including the estimated benefits from reducing particulates (co-benefits) that are already covered by existing regulations and federal health requirements. Of those benefits, $20 billion come from direct climate benefits, and $14 billion to $34 billion are air quality co-benefits. Co-benefits sound positive. Who would not want additional health and environmental benefits from regulations?

The problem is that these benefits are double-counted over and over again with each regulation the federal government imposes. In some instances the co-benefits have accounted for more than 99 percent of the EPA’s estimated environmental benefits. The agency even overestimates the co-benefits by using questionable assumptions about causality and simplistic methods to calculate the benefits.[12]

3. Overly Prescriptive EPA Picks Winners and Losers

The EPA has been arguing that the plan will provide the states with plenty of flexibility and options in meeting its goal. It proposed that states use a combination of “building blocks” to achieve emissions reductions, including improving the efficiency of existing coal-fired power plants, switching from coal-fired power plants to natural gas–fired power plants, and using less carbon-intensive generating power, such as renewable energy or nuclear power. The proposed plan contained a fourth building block, demand-side energy-efficiency measures, but the EPA excluded that building block in calculating the state emission reduction targets. However, states can still implement energy-efficiency measures as a compliance option. The EPA would also allow states to impose a carbon tax or participate in regional cap-and-trade programs.[13]

All of these options present a Sophie’s choice of economic pain, reduced choice, and regulatory engineering of America’s energy economy. Although the EPA does not explicitly direct the states which path to take, the federal government is clearly nudging them to choose expanded renewables and energy efficiency. If a state chooses to produce more renewable power or implement more stringent energy-efficient mandates for homes and businesses, it will receive extra credits toward meeting its emissions targets.

Coal is an obvious loser, but the final regulation also changed language that would have been beneficial for nuclear and natural gas. In the draft proposal, states would have received credit for prolonging the life of an existing nuclear reactor that was at risk of closing. In the final regulation, that is no longer the case. The White House also ignored the importance and increased use of natural gas, a reversal from highlighting the importance of natural gas in shifting away from coal.[14]

Rather than simply setting reduction targets, the Administration continues to favor its preferred energy sources while driving other sources out of production.

4. Federally Imposed Cap-and-Trade

States will have one year to develop and submit their compliance plans or to develop regional plans with other states, although the EPA will grant extension waivers as long as two years. If states choose not to submit a plan, as several state legislators, attorneys general, and governors have suggested, the EPA would impose its federal implementation plan. The 755-page proposed plan is cap and trade, and the EPA is considering two options.[15]

The EPA could set a cap on power plant emissions in a state and allow utilities to trade emissions permits with one another.[16] Alternatively, the EPA could implement a cap-and-trade plan that requires an average emissions rate for the state’s power sector. Environment & Energy Publishing explains,

A rate-based standard with trading could technically allow emissions to grow, as long as generators only emit a certain amount of carbon per megawatt-hour of power produced. A state with a rate around the same level as a natural gas plant could theoretically keep building more and more natural gas plants and stay in compliance.[17]

The EPA will decide on a final plan in the summer of 2016.

Congress and States Need to Take the Power Back

The threat of a federally imposed cap-and-trade plan should not scare states into concocting their own plans. Instead, Members of Congress and state governments should fight the regulation, rather than settling for a slightly more palatable version that will cause significant economic harm while producing no discernable climate or environmental benefits.

—Nicolas D. Loris is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.

Via: Heritage Foundation

Continue Reading.....