CNBC posted the following video on YouTube:
This is the caption underneath the video:
Wow. Sounds Awful.
This is the full video, also posted on YouTube (that the CNBC audience never saw):
And this is a classic illustration of how the media twists the news. Fake news on parade!
The Washington Examiner posted an article today about one of the unintended consequences of the formation of a commission to study voter fraud. This would be funny if it were not so consequential.
The article reports:
Several county clerks in Colorado said they’ve seen hundreds of people withdraw their voter registrations following the state’s announcement that it would comply with President Trump’s voter fraud commission.
In Denver, a spokesperson for the Denver Elections Division said 180 people have withdrawn their registrations in the county since Monday, according to a Denver Channel report.
In Arapahoe County, which contains the city of Aurora, at least 160 people have withdrawn their registrations since July 1.
The counties normally see fewer than 10 withdrawn registrations in similar time frames.
There is nothing I can add.
The Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics released its jobs numbers for June this morning. CNS News posted the numbers.
This is the Labor Force Participation Rate chart taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
As you can see, the Labor Force Participation Rate is fairly steady and moving upward.
Meanwhile, the article at CNS News reports:
The U.S. economy added 220,000 jobs in June, the best showing since February and well above analysts’ expectations of 174,000.
The Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics also said the number of employed Americans — which set records in February, March and April — set another record in June, at 153,168,000 employed.
And the number of Americans not in the labor force — after four straight monthly gains – dropped a bit to 94,813,000.
There is still a lot that needs to be done to put Americans back to work, but we are moving in the right direction. Cutting back on federal regulations should help stimulate the economy, but that impact of cutting those regulations may not be immediately felt.
The article further reports:
Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged 194,000 per month.
In a June 29, 2017 update, the Congressional Budget Office said it expects the U.S. labor market to tighten in the next two years, as greater demand for workers will push the unemployment rate down and the labor force participation rate up.
The projected demand for workers will encourage more people to participate in the labor force, temporarily offsetting the projected decline in participation arising from such factors as the ongoing retirement of baby boomers.
CBO projects that the unemployment rate will remain around 4.3 percent by the end of 2017 and then drop further to 4.2 percent in early 2018.
When there is unequal justice under the law, we need to find the reason for it. It seems as if Congress may be moving in that direction regarding Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information. The guidelines for handling classified information are clear, and the penalties for mishandling it are clear. Former FBI Director James Comey outlined the case against Mrs. Clinton, then chose not to prosecute her for breaking the law. She was not even prosecuted after classified information she had access to was found on a laptop of someone who was not cleared to view the information. So what is the kingpin that will unravel the logic behind this situation? It seems as if Congress may be about to find that out.
Yesterday The New York Post posted an article about the testimony Loretta Lynch gave to Congress last year.
The article reports:
When former Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified last year about her decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, she swore she never talked to “anyone” on the Clinton campaign. That categorical denial, though made in response to a series of questions about whether she spoke with Clintonworld about remaining attorney general if Hillary won the election, could come back to haunt her.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has launched a bipartisan investigation into Lynch for possible obstruction of justice, recently learned of the existence of a document indicating Lynch assured the political director of Clinton’s campaign she wouldn’t let FBI agents “go too far” in probing the former secretary of state.
There is also the matter of the meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton in Ms. Lynch’s airplane in Phoenix. The only reason we know about that meeting is that a reporter was doing his job and reported it. The meeting was totally inappropriate as Mrs. Clinton was under investigation at the time by Ms. Lynch.
There are a lot of people who want the investigation into the handling of Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal to go away. It has been like pulling teeth for Congress to get even as far as it has gotten. However, the thing we need to remember is that equal justice under the law is part of the foundation of our republic. When that principle is ignored, the republic is weakened.
The Daily Signal posted an article yesterday about the agricultural spending portion of the federal budget. Part of the problem in curbing agricultural spending is the fact that the food stamp program is included in the agricultural budget. Thus when cuts can be made to the food stamp program because of an improving economy, agricultural subsidies can be increased without appearing to spend more money. The first step in solving this problem would be to separate the food stamp program from the agricultural program. This would provide more honest numbers showing the cost of these programs. However, there are also some other problem areas.
The article reports:
The article further reports:
In 2001, spending on the food stamp program was roughly $19 billion. These costs doubled to $39 billion in 2008 and, by 2013, doubled again to reach a peak of almost $83 billion.
Although food stamp costs have come down a little since 2013 (they cost $73 billion in 2016), food stamp spending was still close to double what it was in 2008.
The latest projections show the four largest titles of the farm bill (about 99 percent of the farm bill costs) will save more than what was originally projected for the five-year farm bill, but almost all of that is connected to food stamps ($27.3 billion of the $30.8 billion in savings).
These food stamp savings have generally been attributed to a better economy, not the 2014 farm bill.
Now that there has been a minor reduction in the still-massive amount of food stamp spending (it is still near record highs), some legislators want to use those “savings” to provide cover for keeping or even expanding farm handouts.
The American taxpayer can no longer afford to be an insurance provider to farmers. This is another place where the government needs to get out of the way and let the free market take over. It is time for Washington to balance the needs of the taxpayers against the runaway spending of Congress. We are dangerously close to the point where there are so many people riding in the wagon that those not in the wagon do not have the strength to pull it.
This is good information to have if you are planning your retirement. It is also good information to have as you watch Congress debate whether or not to keep the tax deduction for state taxes.
| Real-Estate Property Taxes by State | |||||||||
| Rank | State | Effective Real-Estate Tax Rate | Annual Taxes on $179K Home | State Median Home Value | Annual Taxes on Home Priced at State Median Value | https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/#real-estate | |||
| 1 | New Jersey | 2.35% | $4,189 | $315,900 | $7,410 | ||||
| 2 | Connecticut | 1.97% | $3,517 | $270,500 | $5,327 | ||||
| 3 | New Hampshire | 2.15% | $3,838 | $237,300 | $5,100 | ||||
| 4 | New York | 1.62% | $2,899 | $283,400 | $4,600 | ||||
| 5 | Illinois | 2.30% | $4,105 | $173,800 | $3,995 | ||||
| 6 | Massachusetts | 1.20% | $2,139 | $333,100 | $3,989 | ||||
| 7 | Rhode Island | 1.63% | $2,915 | $238,000 | $3,884 | ||||
| 8 | Vermont | 1.74% | $3,116 | $217,500 | $3,795 | ||||
| 9 | Wisconsin | 1.96% | $3,499 | $165,800 | $3,248 | ||||
| 10 | Maryland | 1.10% | $1,956 | $286,900 | $3,142 | ||||
| 11 | California | 0.81% | $1,438 | $385,500 | $3,104 | ||||
| 12 | Alaska | 1.18% | $2,112 | $250,000 | $2,956 | ||||
| 13 | Washington | 1.08% | $1,931 | $259,500 | $2,805 | ||||
| 14 | District of Columbia | 0.56% | $1,000 | $475,800 | $2,665 | ||||
| 15 | Texas | 1.90% | $3,386 | $136,000 | $2,578 | ||||
| 16 | Oregon | 1.08% | $1,929 | $237,300 | $2,563 | ||||
| T-17 | Pennsylvania | 1.53% | $2,725 | $166,000 | $2,533 | ||||
| T-17 | Nebraska | 1.85% | $3,308 | $133,200 | $2,467 | ||||
| T-19 | Maine | 1.30% | $2,321 | $173,800 | $2,259 | ||||
| T-19 | Minnesota | 1.18% | $2,110 | $186,200 | $2,200 | ||||
| T-19 | Michigan | 1.78% | $3,172 | $122,400 | $2,174 | ||||
| T-19 | Ohio | 1.56% | $2,794 | $129,900 | $2,032 | ||||
| 23 | Virginia | 0.80% | $1,420 | $245,000 | $1,948 | ||||
| 24 | Iowa | 1.48% | $2,649 | $129,200 | $1,916 | ||||
| 25 | South Dakota | 1.34% | $2,389 | $140,500 | $1,879 | ||||
| 26 | Kansas | 1.40% | $2,502 | $132,000 | $1,849 | ||||
| 27 | North Dakota | 1.12% | $2,000 | $153,800 | $1,722 | ||||
| T-28 | Florida | 1.06% | $1,894 | $159,000 | $1,686 | ||||
| T-28 | Montana | 0.85% | $1,525 | $193,500 | $1,652 | ||||
| 30 | Colorado | 0.60% | $1,073 | $247,800 | $1,489 | ||||
| 31 | Nevada | 0.85% | $1,523 | $173,700 | $1,481 | ||||
| T-32 | Utah | 0.68% | $1,218 | $215,900 | $1,472 | ||||
| T-32 | Hawaii | 0.27% | $487 | $515,300 | $1,406 | ||||
| 34 | Georgia | 0.94% | $1,685 | $148,100 | $1,397 | ||||
| 35 | Missouri | 1.00% | $1,790 | $138,400 | $1,387 | ||||
| 36 | Arizona | 0.81% | $1,446 | $167,500 | $1,356 | ||||
| 37 | North Carolina | 0.85% | $1,524 | $154,900 | $1,322 | ||||
| 38 | Idaho | 0.76% | $1,366 | $162,900 | $1,246 | ||||
| 39 | Delaware | 0.54% | $959 | $231,500 | $1,243 | ||||
| 40 | Wyoming | 0.61% | $1,097 | $194,800 | $1,196 | ||||
| 41 | New Mexico | 0.74% | $1,324 | $160,300 | $1,188 | ||||
| 42 | Indiana | 0.87% | $1,560 | $124,200 | $1,085 | ||||
| 43 | Tennessee | 0.75% | $1,335 | $142,100 | $1,062 | ||||
| 44 | Kentucky | 0.85% | $1,511 | $123,200 | $1,042 | ||||
| 45 | Oklahoma | 0.88% | $1,569 | $117,900 | $1,036 | ||||
| 46 | Mississippi | 0.79% | $1,408 | $103,100 | $813 | ||||
| 47 | South Carolina | 0.57% | $1,019 | $139,900 | $798 | ||||
| 48 | Louisiana | 0.49% | $876 | $144,100 | $707 | ||||
| 49 | Arkansas | 0.62% | $1,111 | $111,400 | $693 | ||||
| 50 | West Virginia | 0.58% | $1,044 | $103,800 | $607 | ||||
| 51 | Alabama | 0.43% | $773 | $125,500 | $543 | ||||
YouTube is always posting pictures of creative patterns people create with dominoes. Here is one:
But sometimes things in real life have a domino effect. We are seeing that effect in some recent seemingly unrelated moves by the Trump Administration.
One of the immediate changes that took place when President Trump took office was the lifting of many regulations regarding energy production and energy exporting in the United States. That was the first domino. What seemed to be a national issue is now going to have major international implications.
On Tuesday, Bloomberg News posted an article predicting an agreement between the Trump Administration and Poland that would allow Poland to begin importing natural gas from America. That is the second domino.
The article reports:
Polish leaders are betting Donald Trump’s visit to Warsaw starting on Wednesday, two days before the U.S. president meets his Russian counterpart, will bolster their efforts to reduce the nation’s dependence on natural gas from its eastern neighbor.
Less than a month after Poland’s Baltic Sea terminal received its first shipment of U.S. liquefied natural gas, a spot cargo from Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass plant in Louisiana, authorities in Warsaw are mooting ambitious plans. The ideas range from a long-term gas deal with U.S. producers to infrastructure projects linking east European nations reliant on supplies from Moscow-based Gazprom PJSC.
“We’ve tested our ability to receive U.S. gas,” Krzysztof Szczerski, who heads Polish President Andrzej Duda’s office, said on July 1. “So what’s left is a simple business conversation — when, how much and for how much.”
America’s vast energy resources have the potential to change world politics–from OPEC to Russia’s blackmail of Europe by threatening to cut off the gas supply.
I suspect we are going to see a log more dominoes fall in the future.
Last Thursday The Washington Times posted an article about the ‘Obamaphone’ program started under President Obama. The purpose of the program was to provide low-income Americans with cell phones that they could use in case of emergency. Unfortunately, a new report from the Government Accountability Office reveals that the program is rife with fraud.
The article reports:
The report, requested by Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, also says the program has stashed some $9 billion in assets in private bank accounts rather than with the federal treasury, further increasing risks and depriving taxpayers of the full benefit of that money.
“We’re currently letting phone companies cash a government check every month with little more than the honor system to hold them accountable, and that simply can’t continue,” she said.
The program, run by the Federal Communications Commission, predates President Obama, but it gained attention during his administration when recipients began to associate the free phone with other benefits he doled out to the poor.
The article lists some of the problems with the ‘Obamaphone’ program:
Some 10.6 million people have an Obamaphone, but 36 percent of them may not qualify, investigators said after sampling the population and finding a huge chunk of people couldn’t prove they were eligible.
More than 5,500 people were found to be enrolled for two phones, while the program was paying for nearly 6,400 phones for persons the government has listed as having died.
Investigators also submitted fraudulent applications to see what would happen, and 12 of the 19 phone carriers they applied to approved a phone.
The article concludes:
The FCC had promised to make changes, but the new report says those have fallen short.
GAO investigators questioned whether the program is even needed anymore. The price of phones and service on many plans have dropped dramatically, making them affordable for nearly everyone, the GAO says. Investigators also found that without the free government phone, many recipients would gladly pay for the services on their own anyway.
In its official response, the FCC called the GAO’s report “thoughtful” and promised to try to clean up the program. It said it’s already taken steps to improve the situation.
Milton Friedman said it best, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”
Yesterday Ari Lieberman posted an article at Front Page Magazine about the latest developments in the case of Hillary Clinton’s emails. It is becoming very obvious that there were many reasons why Mrs. Clinton preferred to keep these emails from seeing the light of day.
The article reports:
But perhaps most damning for Clinton was her email scandal which dogged her campaign like a bad rash that wouldn’t go away. Clinton believed that her troubles were behind her when Comey announced in July 2016 that “no charges are appropriate in this case.” But her hopes were soon dashed when her emails once again popped up, this time on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Clinton’s emails now had the stench of Anthony Weiner all over them. She was furious but there was nothing she could do. This was a problem of her own making.
The emails were transferred by Clinton aide and confidant, Huma Abedin to her husband’s laptop. They were inadvertently uncovered by FBI agents during their probe of Weiner for sending sexually explicit emails to a minor. The timing of the revelation could not have been worse for Clinton – just 11 days prior to the election.
If you thought that Clinton’s loss in the general elections put her email scandal to rest, you thought wrong. Clinton’s emails continue to ricochet like exploding shrapnel, tarnishing the Democratic Party and hampering its objectives.
The two latest peripheral victims of the email scandal are Loretta Lynch and current acting FBI director, Andrew McCabe. In open testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, James Comey testified that Loretta Lynch asked him to refer to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server as a ‘matter’, echoing the term used by the Clinton presidential campaign. In private testimony, Comey admitted confronting Loretta Lynch with a document implicating Loretta Lynch in a plan to derail the FBI investigation. There is also the matter of the meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on the tarmac at Phoenix Airport. It doesn’t take a giant leap of faith to assume that Loretta Lynch had been assured of a place in the Clinton Administration if she could tamp down the investigation into Hillary Clinton and her emails.
Andrew McCabe has also been caught up in this web.
The article explains his connection to the scandal:
McCabe has revealed himself to be a deeply problematic figure who is currently the subject of at least three separate investigations which include massive conflicts of interest and possible violations of the Hatch act.
One of those investigations centers on his deep involvement in the Clinton email probe. According to the Wall Street Journal, McCabe “was part of the executive leadership team overseeing the Clinton email investigation.” While McCabe was ostensibly investigating Clinton, his wife Jill was accepting $500,000 for her state senate campaign from long-time Clinton ally, Terry McAuliffe. McCabe failed to disclose this critical piece of information. Insiders believe that it is likely that McCabe will be relieved of his duties in the not too distant future.
The swamp in Washington has become so deep and so entangled that if you pull out something by the roots, you will find other things attached to those roots. The connections and cronyism run deep. Hopefully the Trump Administration can at least begin to undo some of the mess that is there.
Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about the voter rolls in Rhode Island.
The article reports:
The Providence Journal reports that Rhode Island Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea conducted an audit of the state’s voter registry and identified some 150,000 non-Rhode Islanders registered to vote in the state. Gorbea says this group of non-state residents is primarily composed of citizens who have since moved to other jurisdictions or died and does not suggest widespread fraud.
It’s not fraud if none of them voted, but how do we know how many of them voted?
The article continues:
The Journal previously reported that there were 781,770 registered voters in the state in 2016. As such, the group of non-state residents Gorbea’s audit identified account for 19 percent of all registered voters in Rhode Island.
…Still, Gorbea concedes an inaccurate voter registry jeopardizes the state’s elections.
“[H]aving clean voter lists [is] critical to preserving the integrity of our elections and ensure that elections are fair, fast and accurate,” she said.
One has to wonder why states are not more anxious to clean up their voter rolls.
This is another example of why the Commission on Election Integrity is needed.
While the media is focusing on whether or not President Trump’s tweets are appropriate, they are ignoring some extremely inappropriate behavior by former President Obama.
The Federalist Papers posted an article today about the recent violation of the Logan Act by former President Obama.
The article reports:
President Moon Jae-in renewed his resolve to pursue sanctions and dialogue to tackle North Korea’s nuclear program during a meeting with former US President Barack Obama on Monday, saying now is the “last chance” for the regime to return to the negotiating table.
During the 40-minute talk, Moon shared the results of his recent summit with his incumbent US counterpart Donald Trump, asking for Obama’s advice on ways to advance the relationship.
The article then explains the problem:
This could be construed as a violation of the Logan Act as defined by Cornell Law School:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
However, the article includes a quote from The New York Times:
The Logan Act appears to be a so-called dead letter, meaning a law that remains technically on the books but is essentially defunct or toothless.
A study by the Congressional Research Service in 2015 said nobody has ever been prosecuted under the statute and identified only one instance of an indictment under the law: in 1803, the United States attorney in Kentucky obtained from a grand jury an indictment of a Kentucky farmer who had written an article in support of creating a separate nation in the territory west of the fledgling United States that would be an ally to France. But the prosecutor dropped the case. A recent draft scholarly paper posted online by a Federal Appeals Court law clerk identified a second apparent such indictment, involving the reported arrest in 1852 of a man who wrote a letter to the president of Mexico.
What President Obama did in meeting with the South Korean President was tacky, inconsiderate, breaking with tradition, and a further attempt by a now irrelevant politician to regain the spotlight.
Meanwhile the media is focused on Donald Trump’s tweets. Really?
On Friday, Fox News posted an article about what has happened in Phoenix, Arizona, since they have dropped their sanctuary city status.
The article reports:
Bolton (Levi Bolton, executive director to the Arizona Police Association) served with Mark Spencer, who spent 25 years patrolling in Phoenix.
“When we eliminated our sanctuary policy back in 2008, we saw crime, violent and stolen vehicles fall by 25 percent,” he recalled. “We saw a 20-year low crime rate. When we were allowed and had the discretion to contact our federal immigration partners, crime fell drastically.”
According to City-Data.com, which collects data from various government agencies, from 2008 to 2009 Phoenix’s murder rate fell 27 percent, robberies by 23 percent, assault by 13 percent, burglaries by 14 percent and theft by 19 percent. The numbers for each category fell the following year as well – albeit by smaller margins.
One has to wonder why there is opposition to ending sanctuary cities when statistics show that they are more dangerous than cities where immigration laws are enforced. It also needs to be pointed out that ending sanctuary cities simply means enforcing the laws that are already on the books. One of the biggest problems with the Obama Administration was that they chose to pick and choose which laws they would enforce. We need to get back to the concept of enforcing our laws as they are written or changing them. There really is not another option.
Forbes Magazine posted an article today about the impact President Trump has had on the While House payroll.
Here are some of the highlights:
The article concludes:
At the nation’s founding, Ben Franklin said, “Diligence is the mother of good luck.” Although the White House personnel budget is an infinitesimal part of the $3.9 trillion federal budget, it could be a leading indicator of Trump’s commitment to cut waste, fraud and taxpayer abuse.
I wish we could pass this thriftiness along to Congress.
I haven’t seen this story on the national news, so I am reporting it here. Fox 40 in Binghamton, New York,posted an article on June 14th that Ramadan Abdullah, a 64-year-old resident of Johnson City was arrested with 5 felony weapons charges. The man was arrested on a shoplifting charge, but police became suspicious when questioning him and obtained a search warrant to search his storage unit.
The article reports:
After discovering the stash of weapons in the storage unit, police also obtained search warrants for Abdullah’s home at 82 Ackley Ave, and another residence in Oneonta. Police say family members at both residences cooperated with police, but authorities could not comment on whether or not those family members knew about Abdullah’s collection of weapons and ammo.
…SEIZED FROM TWN. UNION STORAGE UNIT
4 loaded handguns
8 assault weapons
1 loaded shotgun
Two rifles
64 large-capacity ammunition feeding devices ( magazine, belt, or device capable of feeding more than 10 rounds)
Thousands of rounds of ammunition for rifles, pistols and assault weapons including 50 caliber armor piercing incendiary rounds, numerous firearm parts and flak jackets
Seems to be a little more than the average gun collector might have.
The Clarion Project posted an article on the arrest today.
The Clarion Project reports:
Abdullah is a longtime associate of the U.S.-based Islamist cult Muslims of America (MOA), which has been described as a terrorist organization in documents from the FBI and other agencies. A 2003 file says MOA is linked to terrorists in Pakistan, including Al-Qaeda affiliates.
The group’s headquarters is a 70-acre compound in Hancock, NY called “Islamberg.” It is just a 50-minute drive from where Abdullah was arrested.
I think it is time to take a look at some of these compounds in America. There are a number of them scattered around the country. They need to be investigated as to who owns the land, who pays the taxes, and who pays the expenses of the compound.
Tax cuts create economic growth. Government revenues soared to record levels during the Reagan Administration. Had Congress not gone wild with spending, we could have made serious progress on cutting our deficits. One of President Trump‘s campaign promises was to simplify the tax code and cut taxes. That is a fantastic idea that will encounter many obstacles. One of those obstacles is the federal deduction for state and local taxes, also known as the SALT deduction. The fight to eliminate this deduction is going to be brutal. Why? Because the SALT deduction essentially forces taxpayers in states with lower state taxes to subsidize taxpayers in states with higher state taxes. The states with ridiculous state taxes– for example California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts–face less opposition to tax increases when their voters know their state taxes can be deducted on their federal tax forms. Residents of high-tax states get a break on their federal income tax because of the high state taxes they pay.
The Wall Street Journal posted an article about this on June 22nd.
The article reports:
An often overlooked but critical feature of Mr. Trump’s tax-reform proposal gives Democrats the perfect opportunity to meet him at the bargaining table. When Mr. Trump introduced “the biggest individual and business tax cut in American history,” he said he would “eliminate targeted tax breaks”—including the federal deduction for state and local taxes. Also known as the SALT deduction, this $100 billion annual tax break to state and local governments has been on the books since 1913, even surviving Reagan tax reform. But this time, threatening the federal deduction may seal a tax deal for the GOP. Here’s why:
First, it’s hard for Democrats to argue that the tax reductions in Mr. Trump’s plan are budget-busters when killing the SALT deduction would add $1.3 trillion to federal coffers over a decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That would pay for a lot of personal and business tax cuts, even without factoring in the faster growth that could pay for those cuts over time.
Third, there’s little in this for red states, because they generally have lower tax rates to begin with. Therefore, according to the Internal Revenue Service, blue states with higher tax rates receive about two-thirds of this break. In fact, half of the $100 billion tax break goes to six deep-blue states: California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. Democrats in favor of preserving the SALT deduction are simply self-interested.
There is no doubt that the SALT deduction is going to be a major bargaining chip when the discussions on tax reform begin. Stay tuned.
It just seems as if every agency in our government has been infused with political operatives. We were supposed to be protected from that by the Hatch Act, but somehow it hasn’t worked that way. Washington has become a sea of people with subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) political alliances that have nothing to do with the good of the country.
The Federalist Papers posted an article yesterday about the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. It is my personal opinion that this investigation will continue until the political left finds someone they can accuse of something. Since they have been throwing accusations around for six months and have found nothing, this may take a while. It may cost us a lot of money to go after some person who did something so horrible as to forget a phone call he made a year ago.
The article states:
As the investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election continues, we see yet another potential issue; this time, it appears that the investigators, the acting FBI director at that, may have personal conflicts of interest that could taint the integrity of the investigation.
The story was revealed by Sara Carter and John Solomon of Circa. They revealed that Senator Chuck Grassley is demanding the DOJ Inspector General investigate the acting FBI director for potential conflict of interest violations.
The article goes on to explain that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel is investigating FBI Director Andrew McCabe for violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits certain federal employees, including the FBI, from engaging in political campaign activity. The news source Circa revealed that McCabe was engaging in political campaigning for his wife in a Virginia state senate race.
The latest problem with Director McCabe is his involvement in an FBI matter involving General Flynn.
The article at The Federalist Papers reports:
The Chairman (Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley) is also asking the Inspector General to investigate the ongoing sexual discrimination lawsuit filed by former FBI Special Agent Robyn Gritz, which named McCabe and other FBI officials, who she accused of impeding her work within the bureau.
Gritz’s complaint was supported by then former Defense Intelligence Agency director Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Flynn, who went on to become President Trump’s National Security Advisor, was subsequently fired after highly classified information regarding a conversation he had with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyac was leaked to the media.
There is definitely a question as to whether Director McCabe has a conflict of interest regarding the Russian investigation.
The article at The Federalist Papers concludes:
The question now, is does the acting FBI director need to recuse himself from presiding over the Russia investigation because of the plausible conflict of interest? Not to mention the fact that McCabe is under investigation for a potential violation of the Hatch Act, it seems that something is very amiss in the acting FBI director’s discretion, going all the way back to 2015 (that is, what we have on record at least).
Is there any untainted, apolitical person we can put in charge of the FBI?
Media bias is reflected in the slant of stories. It is also reflected by the stories the media promotes and the stories the media ignores.
On Friday The Washington Examiner posted an article that illustrates what media bias looks like.
The article states:
The House voted to pass two immigration measures on Thursday, but both ABC and CBS completely omitted that information from their nightly news programs.
On “NBC Nightly News,” anchor Lester Holt dedicated just 26 seconds to the story after leading his program with a three minute segment on President Trump‘s tweets about Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, according to a survey of the coverage conducted by the conservative Media Research Center.
One of the immigration reform bills voted on by the House, Kate’s Law, passed with bipartisan support, a newsworthy development amid heightened partisanship in Washington. The bill also touches a topic about which people have very strong feelings. Although it’s unlikely the legislation will survive a vote in the Senate, the decision by two of the three major networks simply to blow it off is somewhat remarkable. The law passed more than an hour before either broadcast aired, a development that had been widely anticipated all week.
Kate’s Law increases the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States. It passed by a vote of 257 to 157, with one Republican voting no and 24 Democrats voting yes. A bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives should be news–it hasn’t happened a lot lately.
Why was the media concentrating on President Trump’s tweets instead of the passage of Kate’s Law? There are many people on both sides of the political spectrum who didn’t like what President Trump tweeted. When you ignore the constant attacks on President Trump and his family by Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough (as the media coverage generally did), President Trump was being rude. However, when you look at the tweet in the context of the constant attacks on President Trump and his family, why would you expect him not to fight back? The media used to respect the privacy of children of presidents. Under the Trump Administration, that no longer holds true. I think the attention and the slant the mainstream media is giving President Trump’s tweets while ignoring a major news story explains why no one believes them or depends on them for honest news.
