Bernie Budget

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) has released the outline of his budget, which he claims would pay for all of his Free Stuff spending.  Here are a couple of the high points of his budget.

  • tax the investing process
    • 5% tax on stock trades
    • 1% fee on bond trades
    • 005% fee on derivative trades
  • wealth tax on the “top 0.1%”

These, without inhibiting investments, including those of the mutual funds in our 401(k)s, 403(b)s, etc, are supposed to raise more than $6 trillion over ten years, and—poof—there go all college expenses and housing costs. Never mind that this would drive up the cost of investing by a factor of five—but no, there’d be no effect on investing.

  • sue the lights out of fossil fuel companies

This is supposed to raise another $3 trillion. Never mind that with the courts being returned to ruling on the Constitution and the law rather than ruling on the feel-good social issue du jour, that’s a bit chancy.

  • cut defense spending by $1.215 trillion

This one, in the end, may be the most effective at eliminating concerns about paying for the Sanders Free Stuff industry. Once we’re no longer able to defend ourselves, we’ll be easy prey for our enemies. Or the least effective, depending on whether the perspective is ours or our enemy’s.

And as an aside, one non-economic cynical contradiction:

[A]fter arguing that people should not be judged solely by their skin color, Sanders promised that his vice president “definitively” would not be an “old white guy.”

Deliberately Ignorant

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article about the espionage and intellectual property theft threat posed by the People’s Republic of China, Boston University William Fairfield Warren Distinguished Professor artificial intelligence researcher H Eugene Stanley said this when his PRC research collaborator—whom he enthusiastically took on—said this when she was arrested for lying on her visa and for potential espionage:

I’m not interested at all in politics. I’m a scientist.

And

If a person anywhere in the world wants to come to my group, and they have the money to come, I say why not?

Wow. He might want to review the musings of Plato and Aristotle on politics and individuals’ relationship with politics.

And this, as paraphrased by the WSJ:

Mr Stanley said that he receives droves of research requests and that he vets candidates’ scientific credentials. A Boston University spokesman said the school doesn’t engage in classified research and relies on the State Department to screen foreign applicants for national-security risks.

Of course. It’s someone else’s responsibility. Only Government should do, not each of us.

That “research” collaborator?

[F]ederal prosecutors accused Yanqing Ye of acting as an agent of a foreign government. On her application for a J-1 visa used for scholarly exchanges, she said she was a student at [the People’s Republic of] China’s National University of Defense Technology, but omitted that she was a lieutenant in the PLA….

On being asked whether it was useful to work with scholars of the PRC’s National University of Defense Technology, which was the school claimed by Ye and by her handler Kewei Yang on a paper co-written by the two along with Stanley, he responded

Is it a bad place? I don’t know[.]

Here is an example of the failure of the ideology that insists that Government is the solution, of the passivity that lets Government handle personal responsibilities exclusively rather than acting as support for each of us handling our own duties.

The proximate solution? In the particular case, bar Stanley from any government research funding, which the school claims he has none of presently, and bar Boston University from government funding until it cleans up the understanding of ethics and of personal responsibility on the part of its staff and students.

A Cynical Attitude About Health and Health Coverage

Posted on by
Reply

California demurs from the Trump administration’s position that the State’s mandate to insurers that they must cover abortion violates Federal law.  The administration has said it will withhold Federal funding from the State if it doesn’t correct its insurer demand.

The objection to the Trump administration position offered by California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra, though, is especially disingenuous.

The Trump Administration’s threats not only put women’s health on the line, but illegally threaten crucial public health funding that Californians rely on.

For one thing, if the good citizens of California rely on crucial public health funding, then California should provide it. The citizens of the other States of our nation should not be held accountable for the California government’s spending and revenue decisions.

The larger thing, though is Becerra’s women’s health grandstand. Abortion has much, much more to do with the baby’s health than it has with the mother’s health. While pregnancy can threaten a woman’s health, these are extremely rare cases, and they should be handled on the rare case by case basis in which they exist. Funding for and insurance coverage of these few exceptions can be handled in other guises than funding abortions with Federal dollars.

Some Thoughts on the Nevada Caucus

Posted on by
2

…based on 60% of the precincts reporting.  The Nevada map provided at the link indicates that Sanders won the urban counties, Buttigieg won the rural counties, and Biden’s precinct wins are too scattered to show up.

Biden’s showing here indicates he’s wasting his money and Progressive-Democrat primary votes by staying in. He finished second—likely, only 60% of the results are in as I write—and he’s bragging about what a strong showing that is, but the first place finisher got more than twice as many votes as he did. Given the way this campaign began all those months ago, as much as Sanders won so big in Nevada, so big did Biden lose in Nevada.

Mouse over the map, the map, though.  It’s apparent that where Sanders won, he won big, especially in Las Vegas (which is where Biden had his best showing, too—a not quite so distant second). Buttigieg, on the other hand won his rural counties only narrowly.

Sanders’ urban showing, especially in contrast with his rural showing, has interesting implications for President Donald Trump if Sanders becomes the Progressive-Democratic Party nominee.

An aside a propos competence in general, and nothing to do with the candidates themselves. Recall the confusion the Nevada caucus managers had and how they dumped two separate software “aids” for counting results.  After 20 hours for results reporting, Iowa was 62% complete.  Nevada got to 60.4%–the results on which I comment above.

Update: Now, two days after the caucus, Nevada’s reporting is roughly 96% complete. The thrust of my claims remains accurate. The only material change in outcome is that Buttigieg, who was “viable” at the 60% mark, no longer is.

And, at those two days, Nevada’s caucus managers are showing their better performance compared with Iowa’s.

Only Elites Should Govern

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the view of the Left because, after all, average American individual[s are] morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of [our] responsibilities as…democrat[s].

That contempt for us is made explicit by The Washington Post. Writing for the Editors, Director of Graduate Studies for the Political Science and International Affairs MA Programs, Associate Professor and Assistant Chair [who’s she/Marquette trying to convince of her importance: us or Azari?] Julia Azari wrote—and she’s serious:

A better primary system would empower elites to bargain and make decisions, instructed by voters.

Because Elites know better. We’re just dumb farmers and factory workers in flyover country, can’t even learn to code. But WaPo/Azari wasn’t done.

The system as it works now…What it’s not great at is choosing among the many candidates…. A process in which intermediate representatives—elected delegates who understand the priorities of their constituents—can bargain without being bound to specific candidates might actually produce nominees that better reflect what voters want.

Because those “intermediates,” those Know Better Elites, will perforce do a better job than us unwashed masses in choosing who we hire to lead us for a cycle. But wait…

Different states jockey for influence in the official primary. … Elites try to shape the decision early on. Everyone is doing guesswork about what others want. Reforms to the process should try to make that guessing a bit more informed.

It’s not enough to freeze us commoners out of the process, even the States in our federated republic should be denied. Know Betters should be able to do more than merely “try to shape” from early stages.  Here’s the Know Betters’ freeze:

The results [of the reformed process] would be public but not binding; a way to inform elites about voter preferences.

The people’s choice is not binding on anything. I’m reminded of an old spaghetti sauce ad: Give it here, Rosa; I’ll decide, says the father to his wife at the family’s dinner table.

The piece closed with this:

Why not invest some resources in finding out what voters really think, and then allow party delegates to figure out how those opinions can translate into a winning ticket?

We do know what voters “really think:” they voted. Sadly, though, they thought wrong, and Know Betters need to correct the error. Party must decide who will be on the general election ballot, not primary election voters. Sort of like the Communist Party of China does for Hong Kong.

And this “reform” will negate average Americans‘ choices in the general election by dictating to us the Party lists for our choices.

The attitude that Elites—Know Betters—should rule was confirmed in Wednesday’s Progressive-Democratic Presidential candidate debate Wednesday night. When asked by one of the moderators in the end game of the debate whether, at a brokered convention, the candidate entering the brokerage with the plurality of delegates (elected by actual voters) should be the nominee,

…all but Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) rejected the notion that the candidate with the “most delegates” should become the Democratic nominee.

Because they thought voters were going to make the wrong choice and nominate Sanders.

This is the gang that wants to rule over our nation.

Aside: the WaPo piece originally was headlined It’s time to give the elites a bigger say in choosing the president, but the tabloid doesn’t even have the courage of its own convictions; after some social media opprobrium, the editors collectively [sic] ducked under their desks and changed the headline to its present It’s time to switch to preference primaries. This, too, is representative of the gang that wants to rule over our nation.