Monthly Archives: February 2017

Confidence in the Press

Posted on by
Reply

“Aren’t you concerned, Sir, that you are undermining the people’s faith in the First Amendment freedom of the press and the press in this country when you call stories you don’t like fake news…?”

That’s what CNN’s White House Correspondent, Jim Acosta, asked President Donald Trump during last Thursday’s mid-day press conference.

No, the NLMSM is doing a fine job all by itself in undermining the people’s faith in the press—the shot about the First Amendment is disingenuously irrelevant and an illustration of the NLMSM’s performance—the undermining needs no help, and is getting none, from Trump.

See, for instance, CNN’s own bruiting about the fake news of a “dossier” of salacious behaviors allegedly engaged in by Trump in Russia and The New York Times‘ carefully misleading headline last Tuesday, Trump Campaign Had Repeated Contacts with Russian Intelligence while the body of the piece said, “Well, nothing was ever found.”

This is how automatic the NLMSM’s dishonesty is; it no longer can tell right from wrong, truth from fiction.  It has needed no assistance from outside the press to earn its sorry condition.

They’re Already Paying

Posted on by
Reply

Hundreds of people in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez gathered on the edge of the Rio Grande River on Friday to form a “human wall” to protest US President Donald Trump’s plans for a wall between the countries.

Thanks for the assist, Protestors.  As we both know, the wall is necessary—metaphorically if not literally—in order to control our borders, regardless of who pays for it.  Just be sure, guys, that you leave openings in it for easy, legal border crossing, just as we intend to do.

Federal Funds and Sanctuary Cities

Posted on by
Reply

Within days of President Trump’s executive order to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities, San Francisco had filed a lawsuit opposing the order [to block federal funding for them]….

We also have this regarding…coercion…by the Federal government.

Last year, a federal judge in Illinois ruled that it was unconstitutional for the Department of Homeland Security to force local jails to detain suspected undocumented immigrants without a warrant. And in a 1997 Supreme Court decision, Printz v US, a 5-4 majority held that the federal government “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”

OK.  And with our republican form of democracy, articulated most clearly in our 9th and 10th Amendments, those probably aren’t bad court rulings.

However, if things like Printz v US or South Dakota v Dole [another Supreme Court coercion case] really are going to be players in this, it’s a game easily settled: stop sending Federal dollars—taxpayer dollars—to all cities altogether.  The cities have no inherent right to Federal money, and the cessation of that particular spending would be good for the Federal budget in its own right.

A Thought on a Thought on Bank Reserves

Posted on by
Reply

Neel Kashkari, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and active member of the Federal Open Market Committee, had the thought that’s the object of my thought in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.

…increase capital requirements on the biggest banks—those with assets over $250 billion—to at least 23.5%. It would reduce the risk of a taxpayer bailout to less than 10% over the next century.

No.  Have the banks publish their reserve holdings and the total of the loans outstanding in their portfolio together with the per centages of the latter that are current, late, or in default.  Let each bank’s creditors—depositors and other lenders—and investors make their own assessments of the bank’s viability.  Government need not be involved.

Beyond that, we have a bankruptcy court system that’s entirely adequate to the problem; there’s no need to excuse banks from the system.  Moreover, by doing this much, we would eliminate the too-big-to-fail monstrosity of Dodd-Frank, and we would reduce the risk of a taxpayer bailout by far more than Kashkari’s timid 10%: that risk would be reduced by 100%.

Beyonder than that, we have this seeming conflict.  Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan recently asked,

Do we have [to hold] an extra $20 billion in capital? Which doesn’t sound like a lot, but that’s $200 billion in loans we could make.

To which Kashkari quite legitimately replied,

Borrowing costs for homeowners and businesses are near record lows. If loans were scarce, borrowers would be competing for them, driving up costs. That isn’t happening.

However, leaving aside the regulatory state that’s holding back our economy and with that depressing demand for big ticket items and so demand for loans (and interfering with the process of loan making, as described by Kashkari in his piece), the loan rates/demands vs freeing up those loanable funds is a chicken and egg thing.

I vote for the egg: free up those restricted funds in the private sector instead of freeing up funds via the Federal printing press.

Good Reporting?

Posted on by
1

That’s Howard Kurtz’ claim.  In his piece about the NLMSM, Michael Flynn, and the “leak” that led to his resignation as President Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor, Kurtz said that The Washington Post story that began the thing was “good reporting.”

Then Kurtz said this:

[T]he Post story would not have been possible without the cooperation of nine unnamed senior officials who furnished the leaked information.

The Post story was built entirely on those unnamed persons.  Unnamed.  We don’t know there were nine.  We don’t know they were senior or even officials.  We don’t even know they exist.  I have to ask: what part of “unnamed” is unclear to Kurtz?

The Post didn’t provide a single bit of corroborating evidence; The Post didn’t name a single source who would corroborate the claims of the leaker or leakers.  The only corroboration in this whole sad affair is the lack of denial from the White House.  This is damning, certainly, but it’s hardly dispositive.

Kurtz added this:

But it must be said that the leakers’ information was right on target.

Based on what?  Kurtz, along with his confreres in the NLMSM, have chosen to not publish the leaked transcripts to which the NLMSM claims to have access.

When did rumor-mongering become good reporting?