Freedom rankings among the 50 states

From the Cato Institute, a study ranking the level of freedom available in the 50 United States. Read about their methodology and results here.

Very interesting. The low-freedom  states were as expected (New York and California came in at 50th and 49th respectively), but the high-freedom states were a surprise – at least to me. Well worth your time to review.

International gun control?

Michael Bloomberg named World Health Organization ambassador

Note that Bloomberg will be responsible for non-communicable diseases, which includes cancer, diabetes, heart and lung disease, and  – listed later in the article – “combat injuries”. Based on Bloomberg’s long history of opposing the 2nd amendment, how long do you think it will be before all gun-related deaths fall into the category of “non-communicable disease” – like “combat injuries” – and thus fall within his domain? I predict that Bloomberg will use his new post to push for international gun control.

Remember, you heard it here first.

 

A dartboard and a blindfold….

… would have worked out better:

CalPERS earned less than 1% in fiscal year

CalPERS is the defined benefit retirement system for California’s public sector employees. The problem: any shortfalls in the retirement fund is paid by – you guessed it – the citizens (remaining) in California. Doesn’t exactly help that the unions hold a substantial sway over investments. The $300B CalPERS system is currently only 68% funded (that’s an almost $100B shortfall already).

The big problem with these defined benefit systems, particularly when they are heavily union-controlled, is two-fold: 1) there is no incentive to control costs associated with pensions, such as “pension spiking“, and 2) there is substantial potential for undue influence over investments.

It is time for legislation that eliminates these public-sector defined benefit systems altogether. They should be changed into defined contribution systems where retirement funds are paid into individual retirement accounts. Or, if the union still wants to influence investments, defined contributions can be made into a union-controlled fund managed for the benefit of their members. At least then there will be incentive to invest wisely and limit pension costs…

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.