Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Sadly This Seems True

Criminologists have tried for decades to prove that the overrepresentation of blacks in prison is due to criminal-justice racism. They have always come up short. They have been forced to the same conclusion as Michael Tonry in his book, Malign Neglect: “Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned,” Tonry wrote. In 1997, criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen reviewed the massive literature on charging and sentencing. They found overwhelming evidence establishing that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites and for longer terms.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/hillarys-debate-lies-14759.html

"Turn out the lights, the party's over ..."

Will the last one out of ObamaCare please turn off the lights?

That's a question that health insurers and individual Americans both may want to start pondering. Recent events such as the departure of the insurance company Aetna from the vast majority of state exchanges show that ObamaCare is entering the death spiral that experts have long predicted. Insurers are now heading for the exit, fast — and consumers won't be far behind them.

In the wake of massive losses, insurance companies are instinctively engaging their fight-or-flight instincts. The two big insurers remaining on state exchanges — Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and Cigna — are still evaluating the risks of a collapsing system, trying to determine if they should abandon the ObamaCare exchanges altogether or cope with the realities of increasingly high-cost care and coverage.
http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/obamacares-death-spiral-has-begun/

Why Did She Need It?

Why did Cheryl Mills require criminal immunity?

This is the irksome question hanging over the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s home-brew server in the wake of news that Ms. Mills was granted immunity for her laptop’s contents.

Ms. Mills was a top Clinton aide at the State Department who became Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer when she left. She was also a witness, as well as a potential target, in the same FBI investigation into her boss’s emails. The laptop the bureau wanted was one Ms. Mills used in 2014 to sort Clinton emails before deciding which would be turned over to State.

Here’s the problem. There are two ways a witness can get immunity: Either she invokes the Fifth Amendment on the grounds she might incriminate herself, or, worried something on the laptop might expose her to criminal liability, her lawyers reveal what this might be before prosecutors agree to an immunity deal.

As with so much else in this investigation, the way the laptop was handled was out of the ordinary. Normally, immunity is granted for testimony and interviews. The laptop was evidence. Standard practice would have been for the FBI to get a grand-jury subpoena to compel Ms. Mills to produce it.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-secrets-of-cheryl-mills-1474932673

I feel covered in slime reading about these things.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Who's the Greediest of All

Someone might want to tell Hillary Clinton that greed and envy are two of the seven deadly sins. She's guilty of both.

Get instant access to exclusive stock lists and powerful tools on Investors.com. Try us free for 4 weeks.
Her revised tax plan‎ would raise the estate tax to as high as 65% -- up from 40% today. She would also apply the hated death tax to as many as twice the number of estates.

It's one of her dumbest ideas yet — which is saying a lot. It won't raise any revenue to speak of. It's a bow-tied gift to estate tax lawyers and accountants. Many studies have found that the cost to the economy of taxing a lifetime of savings more than ‎outweighs any benefits. It actually could end up costing the Treasury money by reducing investment in family businesses that are a major engine of growth for our economy.

But Hillary wants to take us back to the 1970s. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, the plan would "impose a 50% rate that would apply to estates over $10 million a person, a 55% rate that starts at $50 million a person, and the top rate of 65%, which would affect only those with assets exceeding $500 million for a single person and $1 billion for married couple.

What Hillary doesn't get is this: Anyone who's smart enough to make half a billion dollars is smart enough to find a way to dodge this confiscatory tax. That's the whole history of the death tax — the very rich never pay it."
http://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/bernie-clintons-massive-tax-hike-is-based-on-greed-and-envy/

Who knows more - markets or true believers?

So while scientists are aggressively promoting their theories about a horrid future thanks to no serious global response to what has them alarmed, the smartest investors in the world are plainly ignoring them as though their theories are bogus.  Just once it would be nice if the scientific community might address why the very people who have the most to lose from so-called “global warming” work, invest and live as though its impact will prove a non-factor.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2016/09/25/are-the-promoters-of-global-warming-catastrophe-the-actual-ones-in-denial/2/#6525886c5e71

Wouldn't It Suck If We Made Our President Into A King ... And Then The Other Guys Regained Power?

In one way, it’s not surprising that Democrats are beside themselves at the possibility of a Trump presidency. They’ve spent the last 100 years expanding the scope of executive authority, granting the federal administrative agencies the power of judge, jury, and executioner over their ever-widening dominion. If liberals and progressives didn’t want that awesome, intrusive power to fall into the wrong hands, perhaps they should have heeded the warnings of small-government conservatives, who railed for a century against the bloat, rot, and corruption they saw metastasizing within the District of Columbia. Perhaps they shouldn’t have declared the U.S. Constitution—with its bill of rights and enumerated powers—to be an antiquated relic.
http://city-journal.org/html/normalize-14753.html

I don't think the progressives get the irony, yet.

Not that there's any reason to think Trump would be a worse king than another Clinton.

In Theory

As it happens, Clinton’s agenda, as my colleague Adam Davidson also wrote the other day, does have a unifying theme. It’s the same one that Democrats have been running on for twenty-five years, a period in which they have won the popular vote in five out of six Presidential elections, and it involves using the power of the government to tilt the economy in favor of working people. Trump, although he talks like a populist, has largely adopted the regressive economic policies of the Republican establishment. 
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-presidential-debate-is-clintons-chance-to-outfox-trump?intcid=mod-latest

They have been running on for 25 years?  More like 100 years.  More federal government power, more pretense that the federal government pulling strings will give us the predicted results without the negative unintended consequences.  Giving more power to an already over-reaching federal government is just giving more booze and faster cars to teens.  I would say only idiots could think this will work, but I know too many smart people who are still caught in this fantasy.