Month: August 2016

Pardon me….

Bill Clinton pardoned a lot of people before he left office. Normally I don’t cite Wikipedia, but this looks like a well-documented list so here it is. It can be cross-checked with the Justice Department here. Do yourself a favor and read up on some of these pardons. For instance:

Roger Clinton, Jr. (Bill’s own half-brother), convicted of drug charges but pardoned by his half-brother on his last day in office. How convenient is that?

Or how about international fugitive Marc Rich, wanted for tax evasion and defying trade sanctions with Iran (which made him rich), whose former wife had contributed millions to Clinton causes and has now renounced her America citizenship (possibly to avoid taxes?). Even Eric Holder, Barack Obama’s appointee as U.S. Attorney General was involved, advising Clinton that he was “neutral leaning towards favorable” on Rich’s pardon. Note, too, that it was Eric Holder who advised Rich’s attorneys to bypass the justice department process and petition the White House directly, preventing the justice department from protesting the application.

Political appointees convicted of crimes are also on the list, such as Henry Cisneros, Clinton’s HUD secretary. Cisneros was convicted of lying to the feds about his mistress (sound familiar?). Relatives of political appointees are also beneficiaries of the Clinton’s pardon pen, such a Richard W. Riley Jr. (who applied for his pardon the day before it was granted). Richard Jr. is the son of Clinton Education Secretary Richard Riley.

The list goes on and on, but the most egregious are reviewed here. The list of pardons includes former business partners (think Whitewater), politicians, political supporters, financial supporters, appointees – you name it. Read it; it’s a good synopsis of what to expect when the Clinton’s are back in the White House.

Does all this amount to favoritism or pay-for-play? I don’t know, but what I do know is that this is what the people are fighting against when they rally behind Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump: they are pushing back against the potential for another 4+ years of a Clinton “friends and family” administration.

The financial cost of refugees

$900 per refugee is paid for someone to meet them at the airport and assist them in getting settled. The administration is requesting $2.2B for 213k refugees over the coming years, amounting to more than $10K each. Total costs for a refugee family, including housing and stipends, are estimated at almost $250,000 per household over the first five years – and that’s not counting ongoing federal welfare benefits to which the refugees are entitled.

Critics leery as aid groups clamor for federal refugee funds

Is this really the best, most cost-effective way to help these people? And should we be accepting these refugees at all, or should we instead be helping them improve their own countries?

It’s a tax!

Whenever the government proposes a new tax on something “bad” to benefit something or some group defined as “good”, it’s just another tax. Don’t fall for it.

Soda taxes are the latest incarnation. Long considered a joke, Philadelphia managed to pass such a tax last year. Now they are poise to be decided on ballots around the country. The stated purpose of these taxes is to prevent obesity, but if that is the case then such taxes should be revenue neutral or the revenue should be dedicated to new obesity-prevention programs that are not currently funded. However, many generate revenue for the general fund, like in San Francisco, or are used to fund programs with existing funding (so that the original funding returns to the general fund to be spent on something else).

Here’s a bit of hypocrisy for you to mull: the stated goal of these taxes is to reduce sugary soda consumption – ostensibly for the public health benefits. This in theory will also reduce the tax collected over time. However, Philadelphia is expecting to fund pre-K education with revenue from this tax (a cost that is likely to rise each year) and claims that the tax revenue will only drop by ~ $20,000/year. Where do you think they will get the money to fund the pre-K system once the tax revenue drops? Also, if the tax revenues do not drop (much) then is their goal really the health benefits they claim, and if so hasn’t the tax failed?

It just seems to me to be a way to fund pre-K education on the backs of a small subset of the population (who likely can’t afford it). In any event, if it increases overall tax revenues then it’s just a tax. Think about that before you jump into the deep end of the pool.

Violence against police

Chicago police warn violence against law enforcement possible after shooting video released

By issuing this memo, the Chicago police are implying that the release of such videos endanger officer lives. However, this is not the case. When the police are prompt in their release of evidence, and take appropriate action against suspect officers in a timely fashion, the public sees that the law applies to all – even the police. Such actions legitimize law enforcement and bolster public confidence that justice will eventually be done. This serves to minimize the desire (or need) for the public to take it upon themselves to exact revenge.

On the other hand, withholding video for more than a year and releasing it only upon order of a judge,  waiting to charge an officer until only after being forced to release the visual evidence of their crime, and hiding a concerted effort by police officers to mislead the public – well, that is a very different set of circumstances.

The prompt release of video evidence and the timely prosecution of rogue officers will reduce the potential for violence against officers. To imply otherwise is irresponsible.

Sorry, dude, but…

…it’s not your money.

From Fox news: Teen says he was fired from Jack-in-the-Box for serving free tacos to veteran

I believe in supporting our veterans – they have a tough job to do in keeping us safe. However, such support is voluntary and it is inappropriate for you to force someone else to support your cause. What if I took money out of your wallet to support my cause? How would you feel then? And it does not matter that your employer can afford such a donation, so don’t go down that route…

It would have been appropriate to petition your employer to provide such benefits to veterans, but it is not your right to unilaterally volunteer their support. In the end, you are nothing more than a thief. Get off of your soapbox and apologize to all involved.

Ask and you shall receive….

Back in January, the 3rd Circuit recognized that in bankruptcy it is sometimes more important to preserve jobs – even in a reduced capacity or at reduced compensation – than lose them entirely. In their words:

“It is preferable to preserve jobs through a rejection” of the expired contract “as opposed to losing the positions permanently,” the judges wrote.

However, the union disagreed. “If we don’t get it (a new contract), shut it down.”, they exclaimed, as they walked out on strike. Well, today they got exactly what they wanted as it was announced that the iconic casino would close.

The reality is that a business concern can’t lose money and remain a viable vehicle for union employment. If the union wants compensation higher than the business can pay, given alternatives where investor money can be better spent, then it must close. It’s simple economics that the union seems to have a hard time understanding. As a result, approximately 1000 union employees are out of work.

In any event, be careful what you wish for….. your wish just might be granted.

Laws selectively enforced

The reverend Jeremy Lucas is alleged to have unlawfully transferred a firearm to another individual in Oregon state. However, since it was in the furtherance of a “liberal” goal (the destruction of the gun) it is unlikely he will be charged. If an otherwise law-abiding citizen had made the same mistake… well, you get the idea.

It is imperative that the law be applied equally to all. Otherwise, laws become the tools of those in power for targeting those with whom they disagree.

Washington state vs. environmentalists

The state of Washington has this one right: they want to shift taxes to help push carbon emissions in the desired direction. Kind of like pruning your yard to promote  desired growth, while simultaneously suppressing the undesired. However, the environmentalist groups seem to believe that they should instead increase taxes so as to fund their desired outcome – more government.

It is not the government’s responsibility to create “government” jobs. In addition, the carbon tax – if successful – will already drive jobs (at the expense of the carbon producers) into cleaner industries without government intrusion or support.