2024 ELECTION UPDATE – HARRIS LAYS AN EGG ON FOX NEWS

A few months ago, when the Dem Party leaders selected Harris as the nominee, I asserted that her political policies were extremely far to the left, and if the public were aware of them, she would lose in a landslide. According to multiple media reports, at the outset of the campaign some 70% of the voters were unclear as to her policies and voting record. Consequently, for most of the campaign the polls have reported the race to be extremely close, virtually a dead heat. l suggested that in order to win her election strategy should be to endeavor to keep these policies hidden. Therefore, her overall strategy should adhere to the following principles:

  1. Say as little as possible.
  2. When forced to speak to the media only do so with friendly journalists who would not press her or ask follow-up questions.
  3. Limit her speeches to scripted comments and speak in generalities, rather than specifics.
  4. Rely on the friendly media to cover up, omit or alter any faux pas.
  5. When all else fails attack Trump and blame him for everything.

Conversely, Trump’s winning strategy was to somehow make the public aware of Harris’ far left policies. I believe that this strategy has been somewhat successful as more voters have become cognizant of Harris’ policies. The question is, is it enough.

For the most part Harris’ strategy was successful until recently. In the last week, however, it was becoming apparent that Trump had seized the momentum, which is very significant in elections. The Harris campaign had come to realize that she needed to change the narrative in order to regain the momentum. It decided that she should grant more interviews, including one with Fox News. It was a gamble, but it was one she had to risk. A few days ago, she participated in a one-on-one interview with Fox’s Bret Baer. Baer had a well-earned reputation of being fair but tough. Harris would have to be on her “A” game.

In a nutshell, she was not, not even close. Basically, she “laid an egg.” She was exposed before a huge audience. For many of them it was her first exposure to them. Rather than attract undecided voters, she turned them off.

My analysis of the interview is as follows:

  1. Parts of it were painful to watch. From the outset Harris appeared to be uncomfortable, defensive and argumentative.
  2. Baer was professional and respectful, but he did not let her get away with vague, general, non-responsive, and incomplete answers, which normally are her staple. Whenever she tried that he challenged her and asked follow-up questions in order to elicit an appropriate answer. Clearly, her inexperience with probing questions showed. She was not used to being challenged, and she didn’t handle it well.
  3. The interview was short – only 26 minutes. At some point, Baer realized that the point of her rambling, “word-salad” responses was to “run out the clock.” He began to interrupt her answers in order to elicit meaningful information. In some cases, she snapped back a retort like “may I finish responding, please? Many times, they ended up interrupting and talking over each other.
  4. There were several contentious topics, including immigration, the economy, relationship with Israel and Iran, and her relationship with Biden, among others.
  5. Regarding immigration, she continually dodged questions regarding the Biden/Harris policies. She did not accept any responsibility for the disaster at the southern border. She failed to explain her failure as “border Czar” to solve resolve the “root causes” or even visit the border until it became apparent that the issue had become a major negative. She stubbornly declined to concur that halting construction of the border wall or terminating Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy were mistakes. She tried to deflect blame onto Trump for Congress’ failure to pass a comprehensive bi-partisan immigration bill, which she had championed. Baer interjected to explain that the bill would have made matters worse by giving the current policy the force of law and providing a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants presently in the US. That comment sparked one of the angry exchanges referred to above. She couldn’t or wouldn’t even disclose how many illegal immigrants had entered the country under her watch.
  6. She refused to elaborate on the controversial matter of Biden’s competence, such as what did she know and when did she know it.
  7. She offered no cogent plans on how to fix the economy, inflation or crime.
  8. Many times, she went to her default answer, which was to blame Trump. At one point, she characterized him as “unstable and unhinged” and questioned his “mental competence to hold office.”
  9. In a related matter Harris declined to attend the annual Al Smith Dinner. This is a non-partisan event hosted by the Catholic Diocese of NY. The goal is to raise money for various Catholic charities. Normally, it is attended by a cross-section of prominent politicians, wealthy executives, donors and members of the media. Attendance is considered a “must” for presidential candidates. Failure to attend is perceived as a “slap in the face” to Catholics. In the 90-year history of the event only one presidential candidate has ever declined to attend. That was Walter Mondale, the Dem candidate for president, in 1984. Coincidentally or not, in the ensuing election Mondale only won one state. Harris claimed she was campaigning, but the truth of the matter is she was already on thin ice with Catholics. She and her far left base are hardcore pro-choice and have been very critical of pro-lifers who have investigated and criticized what they considered to be Planned Parenthood’s “barbarism” toward women who choose to seek alternatives to abortion.

CONCLUSION

It was not a good week for Harris. Her campaign aides and allies in the media will likely try to spin it, but by any objective analysis her attempt to use the Bret Baer interview to widen her appeal had the opposite effect.

Likewise, Catholics will perceive her spurning the Al Smith Dinner as an insult.

All that said, the polls released in the last couple of days did not show any discernable movement. The race is still too close to call. Most everyone agrees it will be determined by the turnout for each candidate.

GET OUT AND VOTE!

by Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

2024 ELECTION UPDATE – LATEST TRENDS AND STATUS OF SENATE RACES

Heretofore, my major focus has been on the presidential race and rightly so. As I write this, the various national polls report Harris with a slight one-to-two-point lead. These polls are mostly irrelevant since the winner is determined by electoral votes, but they do provide some incite as to trends and momentum. Furthermore, they reveal why multiple media outlets have been reporting that the Harris campaign is very concerned, if not panicked. More on that below.

For example:

  1. Harris has been leading Trump in the national polls, but lately her lead has been shrinking. For example, the most recent ABC/Ipsos poll disclosed Harris’ lead to be two points, down from six points last month; CBS News/You Gov reported Harris with a three-point lead versus four points last month; and RealClear reported 1.4% versus 2.2% just a few days ago. These may not seem like significant changes, but in such a close race one should be cognizant of the trend they indicate. Remember, in my last blog I described the significance of momentum in an election.
  2. Multiple polls have reported that Harris is losing support among Blacks and Hispanics, particularly males. This is not surprising since as I have written in previous blogs these groups favor Trump’s policies over Harris’, especially with respect to the economy, crime and illegal immigration. The latest NY Times/Siena and NY Post polls reported that Dem support among Blacks has declined from 90% in 2020 to 78%. Similarly, support among Hispanics has declined to 56%. Even though the Dems have been trying to scare Hispanics with Trump’s “get tough” policies regarding illegal immigrants, including deportation, they are not buying it. Polls show that 67% of Hispanics born in the US and 51% born in another country don’t believe those harsh policies will pertain to them. Both of these demographics have long been bellwether Dem supporters, but both groups have come to realize that the Dems are no longer delivering on campaign promises. Their primary complaints are regarding the economy/inflation, crime and illegal immigration.
  3. Prior to these surveys being published there were multiple media reports that Dems’ internal polls were indicating Harris was losing ground in the swing states and among Blacks and Hispanics. Political Journalist Mark Halperin denoted “there are a lot of really worried Democrats, and there are no really worried Republicans.”
  4. Across all demographics Harris is polling better among women and Trump is polling better among men.
  5. Multiple polls have reported that Trump is gaining in most of the swing states. The latest Redfield & Wilton survey of voters in GA and PA showed Trump to be up 1% in GA and 2% in PA. Again, although the margins are tiny and within the margin of error, they indicate a significant improvement compared to 2020 when Trump lost both GA and PA in tight races. These results are another indication of the shift in momentum towards Trump. If these leads hold up on ED and Trump also wins the other states in which he is currently leading, he will win the election.
  6. According to the NY Post more people who voted for Biden in 2020 have gravitated to Trump than to Harris. This is somewhat surprising since Harris, like Biden, is a Dem. Perhaps, it is an indication of the realization that Harris is a weaker candidate than Biden was in 2020. In the crucial states of PA and GA Trump is beating Harris in acquiring formerly Biden voters 12% to 6% and 13% to 11%, respectively. Again, this might not seem like much, but given the extremely tight races in those states, it is significant. Voters in both states identified the economy/inflation as their primary concern.
  7. Multiple media outlets have reported that Biden has been providing only tepid support for Harris. Apparently, he is resentful of the manner in which he was replaced by Harris. He feels he is still the better candidate, and his candidacy was sabotaged. For example, he has declined to attend some of her campaign events, and he was seen wearing a “Trump 2024” cap at a recent campaign event. Jason Meister, a strategist on the Trump campaign was blunter, saying “Biden is intentionally enacting revenge on Kamala for knifing him in the back.”
  8. Harris, whose campaign strategy had been to say as little as possible and only grant interviews with “friendly” journalists has recently agreed to appear on Fox News to be interviewed by Bret Baer. Baer will be fair, but it will not be a “softball” interview. She will likely have to explain her policies, in detail, including why they have changed since she became the nominee. This could be problematic for her, so I can only conclude that she is afraid, maybe even “panicked,” that she is losing. Prospectively, she may be forced to grant additional interviews outside of her comfort zone.
  9. The Senate could be a major issue. In my view, it is essential for the GOP to gain control of it in order to prevent the Dems from blocking legislation or even impeaching Trump like they did after the 2016 election. Presently, the Dems have slight control over the Senate – 51 (including two independents) to 49. Therefore, the GOP has to flip a net of two seats to obtain control (one if Trump were to win). According to multiple media reports West Virginia is virtually a “lock” due to Joe Manchin’s retirement. Montana is a good possibility as well. However, the Dems have a chance to flip Texas, where Ted Cruz is clinging to a narrow lead, and Nebraska. There are several other close races as well, so we’ll see what happens.

CONCLUSION

The presidential race remains tight. There are many states, including the swing states, where the polls report the margins to be very tight, well within the margin for error. The GOP has the momentum, but a lot can happen in the next few weeks to change the outcome. The GOP cannot be overconfident. Get out and vote!

by Tags: , , , , , , Leave a comment

2024 PRESIDENTIAL UPDATE. MO FAVORS TRUMP.

Historically, momentum has proven to be a powerful force in elections. Often it is unrecognized or undervalued in the polls – until Election Day when the underdog who has been behind in the polls pulls an unforeseen upset. That is one of the axioms behind the famous expression that “the only poll that counts is the one on Election Day.” In recent history two examples of this phenomenon were Harry Truman defeating Dewey in 1948 and Donald Trump defeating Clinton in 2016. On the rare occasions when this occurs the winners are jubilant; the losers are shocked; and the “experts” are confounded. Who can forget the post-election visage of a grinning Truman holding aloft an early edition of the next day’s Chicago Daily Tribune boldly proclaiming, “Dewey Defeats Truman.”

Presently, all the polls indicate that the election remains very close as it has been for several months. In the national poll, which is essentially meaningless, the latest Guardian poll reports Harris ahead by two points 48% – 46%. It’s worth noting that the Guardian’s previous poll had Harris up by 4%, so Trump would appear to have some momentum.

More importantly, let’s consider the seven swing states that will actually decide the election – AZ, GA, MI, NV, NC, PA, and WI. The latest Emerson and Real Clear Politics polls are consistently reporting that Trump has a slight one or two-point lead in AZ, GA, NV, NC, and PA, and the two are tied in MI and WI. This represents an improvement for Trump compared to the 2020 election and earlier 2024 polls, another hint that Trump is gaining momentum.

Pollster Matt Towery, Insider Advantage, noted that Trump is gaining with African Americans and Hispanics due to the economy and immigration issues. Hispanic citizens, in particular whose forebears emigrated legally, resent the illegal immigrants’ “jumping the line.” This is the opposite of what the Dems no doubt intended with their open-door policy. Ironically, the Dems are being “hoisted on their own petard.” Towery added that the Administration’s inadequate response to hurricanes Helene and Milton was another negative.

Pollster Robert Cahaly (Trafalgar Group) denoted that the polls may be undervaluing Trump. He speculated that there may be a “hidden vote” for him. Other polls may differ very slightly but taken as a whole the polls are indicating that Trump appears to have the momentum.

There is palpable pessimism among the Harris supporters. One senior Dem source apprised the NY Post that the Dems were “not in a Blue Wall panic… but they were concerned.” MI Dem Rep Elise Slotkin acknowledged “we have her underwater in our polling.”

Below please find what I consider to be the key recent developments based on multiple media reports:

  1. Trump is on the right side of the issues that voters have opined concerns them the most in this election – the economy, inflation, the border/illegal immigration, crime and security. The numbers with respect to these issues speak for themselves and cannot be explained away by the Dems with vague generalities, platitudes, and anti-Trump utterances.
  2. The electorate is gradually becoming cognizant that Harris’ reluctance to disclose her specific views on the issues is because she is hiding them in order to get elected. Her real views as expressed over her entire political career prior to becoming the nominee are so far to the left as to be downright scary. Even though she has given a few tv interviews recently with friendly journalists she has not acquitted herself well. She is still prone to giving rambling, non-responsive answers. In her recent interview with 60 Minutes a few of her answers were so embarrassing that the network had to edit them before showing them on tv.
  3. Based on polls in the swing states Trump is gaining among men, particularly Black and Hispanic men. Traditionally, Dem candidates have held decisive edges with these groups, but there are signs of much concern this year. For instance, recently the Harris campaign has launched ads aimed specifically aimed at Black and Hispanic men. Various observers, such as TX Rep Wesley Hunt, are predicting that Trump will have “the highest male Black vote of any Republican president[ial candidate] in modern history.” According to a recent NAACP survey 25% of Black men under 50 disclosed they would vote for Trump. This may not seem like much, but it represents a sizeable increase over previous election cycles.
  4. As a further indication of the extent of the Dems’ concerns regarding the above trends former President Obama in a recent speech actually lectured Blacks that it is “not acceptable for Black men to support Trump.” In addition, he asserted (incorrectly) that Black men are opposed to Harris based on her gender. I don’t believe that this insulting, demeaning and highhanded attitude will help the Dems with male Blacks.
  5. Moreover, local radio host Dan O’Donnell reported to the NY Post that the Harris campaign has taken the unusual tact of targeting Blacks in Philadelphia by advertising on hip-hop radio stations in the area.
  6. The NY Post reported that Black men such as Rafael Smith, a former Harris supporter from MI, has switched to Trump because he feels the Dems have taken his and other Blacks’ support for granted “just because [Harris] is a woman of color.” He said “I don’t really think they’re looking at what she has done within the last 3 1/2 years…”
  7. Another implication of concern among Dems is the appearance of former president Bill Clinton. The so-called “Big Dog” has commenced campaigning in NC and GA.
  8. Harris has committed to participate in a town hall interview on October 23 that will be hosted by CNN. As we all know, a town hall format is not exactly in her wheelhouse. In my view, this is a further illustration of her concern that her campaign is flailing.
  9. Trump has expressed his views and intentions on the issues very clearly. For example, he will not “pussyfoot” around with illegals, particularly those who have committed crimes against Americans. He states that his Administration “will either ‘put these vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail or get them the hell out of our country.’ ” He has even floated the idea of invoking the seldom-used Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which authorizes the president to “apprehend, restrain, secure and remove [those who] are deemed a threat to the US during wartime.” This language may be extreme or even illegal, but it resonates with those who are sick and tired of illegal aliens strutting into the US unrestrained and then preying upon US citizens.
  10. Trump has made other promises that show he is cognizant of voters’ major concerns. For example, he will “drill, baby drill;” he will deal more aggressively with Iran; and he will support Israel more strongly in its war against Iran and its terrorist proxies. He will not tax overtime pay or tips; he will eliminate the double taxation being levied against Americans living and working abroad; he will make interest on car loans tax deductible; and he will extend the Trump tax cuts that are scheduled to expire in 2025. These will primarily benefit middle class and working-class voters, which counters the Dem’s claim that his policies favor the wealthy.
  11. Despite multiple credible plots reported against him and two actual assassination attempts the government has still not acceded to all of the Trump campaign’s requests for enhanced security. Some Trump supporters have seriously questioned why, insinuating it may be part of a sinister assassination plot to leave Trump exposed.

CONCLUSION

As I said above, it appears that Trump has grabbed the momentum. He knows it; the Harris campaign knows it; you know it; and I know it. Just look at the substantial and enthusiastic crowds he draws wherever he goes. Just look at the signs of concern or even panic in the Harris campaign as delineated above.

Whether it’s due to a bias in the polling or the reluctance of some supporters to admit they will be voting for Trump, remember his appeal was undervalued in the polls in both 2016 and to a lesser extent in 2020. One caveat is that the election is far from over. A lot can happen between now and ED to swing the election, but at the present time it’s looking good.

by Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

COLUMBUS DAY

On Monday, October 14, we will celebrate Columbus Day, which is a holiday to honor the man who “discovered” America. But did he? More on that later.

Federal offices and most banks will be closed, so there will be no mail delivery (although national parks will be open). On the other hand, financial markets and most schools will be open. Many cities and towns will hold their traditional Columbus Day parade, including NYC for the 80th year. If you’re planning to drive into midtown on Monday, don’t. There will be many street closures, and the usual heavy traffic will be especially brutal.

CD has been celebrated in the US since 1792. Originally, it was celebrated on October 12, the date on which Columbus made landfall. FDR proclaimed CD a national holiday in 1937. In 1971 pursuant to the Uniform Monday Holiday Act the date was changed to the second Monday in October where it has remained ever since.

In recent years Columbus and CD have become controversial. Many Native American and other activist groups have denoted his brutality toward the indigenous peoples he encountered, particularly in the West Indies. Some states, such as Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, and South Dakota, have authorized alternate holidays, such as Fraternal Day and Indigenous Peoples Day in protest. Others don’t celebrate it at all. According to Pew Research presently, only 16 states plus the territory of American Samoa still celebrate the holiday exclusively as Columbus Day.

For hundreds of years the conventional wisdom was that Columbus discovered America in 1492. Most of us know the basics of the story. Columbus was born in Genoa, which is now part of Italy, in 1451. According to Wikipedia the precise date is not known. He went to sea at around the age of ten and travelled extensively from the British Isles to the West African coast.

By the late 1400s the spice trade between Asia and Europe had become extremely lucrative. The problem was it took too long to travel between the two locations. Either ships had to sail around the “horn” of Africa or caravans had to travel overland through central Asia. Both routes were arduous and dangerous. Columbus became convinced he could find a quicker route. Time meant money, even in the 15th century. He was seeking a “Northwest Passage” to Asia, which would enhance the spice trade between Europe and Asia. His idea that he could find it by traveling west was generally considered radical and unrealistic.

At the time, most people believed the world was flat, and that if one sailed too far west the ship would simply fall off the edge of the earth. It was not until the 16th century, thanks primarily to the research of Copernicus and Galileo that the scientific community generally accepted the notion that the earth was spherical, not flat, and that it revolved around the sun, not the other way around. Columbus “pitched” his idea all over Europe seeking a sponsor. He was subjected to laughter and ridicule until King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain decided to take a chance on him. He set sail in August of 1492 with three ships – the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria.

On October 12 he made landfall in the current-day Bahama Islands. He named the indigenous people “Indians,” as he thought he was in India. Of course, he was wrong, but the term Indians to identify Native Americans has “stuck.” As colonial Governor of the area he became known for his extreme brutality toward the indigenous people. It was so bad that eventually he was removed from his post.

Eventually, Columbus would make three subsequent voyages to Central and South America. He never set foot in any part of North America. And he never did find the elusive Northwest Passage.

Based on new evidence, it is now generally accepted that Columbus did not “discover” America as we were taught in school. He did not “discover” anything. He was not the first person to set foot in America, not even close as you will see below. What he did accomplish was to make Europeans aware of the existence of a “New World,” which was chock full of unimaginable riches. His successful voyages ushered in a new era of exploration, exploitation, conquest, colonization and war that would last for centuries. He was not the first, but one can argue that he was the most significant.

So, who did “discover” America?

  1. According to historian Michael Bawaya, editor of the magazine, American Archaeology, the original settlers of the NW arrived about 15,000 years ago. At that time the Bering Sea, which separates modern-day Siberia from North America, was more shallow than it is now. In some areas, there was an actual land-bridge. According to the US National Parks Service the land-bridge “played a vital role” in the spread of flora and fauna between the two continents. Animals such as mastodons, wooly mammoths, Arctic camels, horses and various species of fish and birds moved freely over the land-bridge establishing migration patterns that persist to this day. Of course, humans followed as they went where the food was.
  2. Archaeologists have discovered evidence of settlements in and around Clovis, NM that are some 11,000 years old. DNA evidence suggests that these inhabitants were the direct ancestors of some 80% of ALL indigenous peoples in the Americas.
  3. According to voanews there is ample evidence that the Vikings inhabited Newfoundland and other parts of eastern Canada as early as circa 1100. Two leaders of these intrepid Viking explorers were Leif Erickson and his son, Eric “the Red.” They did not establish any permanent colonies, but there is ample evidence that they used the area as a winter settlement to make repairs to their boats and “ride out” bad weather.
  4. There is evidence that Chinese and/or Polynesian explorers made their way to parts of South America well before Columbus.

CONCLUSION

In summary, I believe Columbus deserves credit (and blame) for introducing the New World to Europeans and all that followed, but it cannot be said that he “discovered” it. As indicated by his harsh treatment of the natives he was not perfect; none of us is. But I am not a proponent of “revisionist history” as advocated by many on the “left.” Therefore, I do not believe CD should be “canceled.” In my view, Columbus, regardless of his well-documented personal faults, deserves credit for his extensive and significant historical impact, and should continue to be recognized with a holiday in his memory.

by Tags: , , , Leave a comment

THE RECENT ESCALATION OF ANTISEMITISM

In the past couple of years I have posted several blogs detailing the state of antisemitism both in the US and the world at large. I believe that the one-year anniversary of the brutal and heinous surprise attack by Hamas against Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023 is an appropriate time to review and update the issue. We are all familiar with the repulsive details of those heinous terrorist attacks and the resultant war. There is no need to repeat it all here. One might say the attack was Israel’s 9/11.

Rather than generating sympathy for the victims the attack seems to have unleashed a level of antisemitism not seen since the 1930s and 1940s. Below please find my analysis of the root causes of this, citations of some of the numerous examples, and a warning to American Jews.

  1. Without repeating what I have posted in some detail in previous blogs suffice to say that the root causes of antisemitism go back some 5,000 years. Jews have always been perceived as being “different,” different religion, different God, different day of worship, different appearance, and different customs. People tend to mistrust and even hate those who are different.
  2. Throughout history Jews have been persecuted (e. g. the Spanish Inquisition, the pogroms of Russia and Poland, and of course the Holocaust.
  3. Until the advent of the State of Israel in 1948 Jews did not have a land of their own, a land where they would be safe and secure. Wherever they lived they were subject to the whims of that country’s rulers.
  4. Many, if not most, rulers were not welcoming. Some were even downright hostile. Others would tolerate Jews for a time. One reason was that in times of strife, for example, a plague or a famine or other misfortune Jews would provide a handy scapegoat. By blaming the Jews rulers would be able to distract the masses from their own culpability and their own miserable existence. For instance, Jews co-existed in harmony and prosperity in Germany for some 500 years before the rise of the Nazis who found them to be a convenient scapegoat for Germany’s post-WWI misery.
  5. More recently, Jews have lived in the US in peace and prosperity since its founding. They have grown secure and complacent, and they are not aware that it can all be taken away. Many of them are oblivious to the depth of antisemitism extant in the US and the world in general. History has demonstrated that it can all be taken away either violently or gradually so that one would not notice until it was too late.
  6. With respect to the war in the ME both the Jews and the Muslims consider Jerusalem and the surrounding area to be their “Holy Land,” and they have fought numerous wars for the control of it over thousands of years.
  7. The Muslim terrorists dispute the validity of the State of Israel and want to obliterate both it and the Jews who inhabit it. They have made no secret about it. Hamas has included that goal in its charter. Furthermore, that is the meaning of the chant “from the river to the sea, the Holy Land will be free.”
  8. On the other hand, the Jews are determined to destroy Hamas, Hezbollah and the other terrorist groups as a fighting force decisively once and for all.
  9. The Israelis don’t want a ceasefire at this time. They are winning, and they want to finish the job. They know that if they don’t, they will just have to fight another war in the future, and another, and another, and another. Eventually, they may lose one, and then it would Sayonara.
  10. Neither side is in favor of the much-ballyhooed two-state solution. Hamas would not honor any ceasefire anyway. They would just use it as a chance to regroup and rearm for the next war.
  11. The smart strategy for BH would be to support Israel 100%, get out of its way, and let it finish the job, but as one can see it is not doing that. I believe it is either out of ignorance, a desire to placate the antisemitic left wing of the Dem Party, or a combination of the two. In addition, they lifted the Trump sanctions against Iran, which very effective. Iran was practically broke. Instead BH’s policy has provided it with untold billions of dollars of oil money that it is using to fund the terrorists. That is an ill-advised policy, geopolitically, economically and militarily. Israel is our only dependable ally in the volatile and strategically critical ME. BH’s policy has actually lengthened the war and endangered the lives of the hostages.
  12. BH have urged Israel to show “restraint” in its response. They have provided Israel with only tepid support to avoid offending the radical left wing of the Dem party.
  13. Incredibly, the bulk of world opinion is against Israel. It was the one that was brutally attacked, yet most of the world’s sympathy has been directed toward the Palestinians. Obviously, that is because of antisemitism. In the history of the world Israel is the only country that was attacked that was then urged to show restraint or even standdown.

That brings us to the main subject of the blog, the alarming expansion of antisemitism in the US and the world. There are a plethora of examples of this, but I will only cite a few to illustrate my point.

  1. Recently, the NY Post reported that 61% of American Jews claim they have “faced bigotry” since last October 7.
  2. According to a recently released survey by the National Opinion Research Council at the University of Chicago 3.5 million Jews have reported that they were victimized by antisemitism in some manner during the past year. This includes violent crimes such as rape and assault and threats such as targeting synagogues, homes and/or businesses with swastikas, graffiti and the like.
  3. Approximately 25% of the respondents expressed fear or reluctance over identifying themselves as Jews, for example by wearing particular clothing or jewelry.
  4. Roughly 40% of college students responded that they felt “uncomfortable” or unsafe at a “campus event.”
  5. Nearly 30% felt that they had been “excluded from a group or event.”
  6. The Anti-Defamation League disclosed that there have been in excess of 150 occasions of “physical assault,” approximately 1,840 instances of “vandalism” and about 8,000 incidents of “written or verbal abuse” against Jews in the past year. Approximately 1,200 of these incidents occurred on college campuses. To put these numbers in some context they represent a 200% increase over the prior year. 200%!
  7. If you know your history you will recognize this as being reminiscent of what occurred in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s.
  8. What I have described has not been limited to the US. The UN has long exhibited feelings of antisemitism. The membership includes many Islamic countries that have long been sympathetic to the Palestinian or even terrorist viewpoints. Moreover, recently French President Emmanuel Macron has been advocating cutting off arms shipments to Israel. It is important to understand that there are only 15.8 million Jews in the world whereas the Muslim population is 1.8 billion, and a goodly number of them live in the US and various European countries where they wield some political influence. Even though relatively few of them are radicalized, I believe most of the moderates are still sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

CONCLUSION

The heinous nature of the October 7 attacks should have generated some sympathy for Israel and Jews in general. In fact, as demonstrated above, the opposite has occurred. It has unleashed latent, covert antisemitism, which I believe has always been lurking just below the surface, like an inactive volcano, waiting to explode. The outpouring of blatant, overt antisemitism in the last year is no coincidence.

BH have done nothing to quell the antisemitism either on college campuses or in general. Nor has Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is Jewish. They have not pushed back against politicians like Ilhan Omar who have continually expressed antisemitic views. They have not provided support to the US Jewish community. They speak in vague generalities and platitudes, but as I keep saying, actions speak louder than words.

Schumer’s case has been particularly disturbing to me. He is one of the most powerful and influential politicians in the country. He represents NY State, which is heavily Jewish. He, of all people, should be advocating for Israel and the Jews. Instead, he has done the opposite by criticizing Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu’s prosecution of the war, even calling for him to resign. As I wrote in a previous blog in my opinion, his actions have been despicable.

In my view, the main takeaway from the current climate is that we Jews are not as safe and secure as we think we are in the US or anywhere else. This is no time to be complacent. We have an election next month. Historically, a majority of Jews has voted for Dems, and for the most part they have delivered. However, the BH administration has not supported Jews. They have not been loyal to us. Why should we continue to be loyal to them. When Trump was president, he was a staunch supporter of Israel. In addition, he has exhibited the conviction and strength of character to support Israel regardless of world opinion and to stand up to the antisemites extant in the US. In my view, it is time to switch and vote for the GOP.

by Tags: , , , , , , , Leave a comment

MIGRANTS OR CITIZENS?

It may not always seem that way, but the federal government has a finite amount of money. It cannot fund everything. So, which group should get preference for assistance, migrants or citizens? Most of you probably think that is a “trick” question. It seems like a no-brainer. Of course, US citizens should get preference when it comes to government largesse.

Unfortunately, under the Biden-Harris Administration (“BH”) that has not always been the case. We have all heard the news reports of illegal immigrants receiving a cornucopia of free stuff, such as food stamps, free lodging in luxury hotels, free flights directly into the US often in the middle of the night, free education, and free medical care, among others. The list of freebies is much more extensive than that, but you get the point. What are the sources of funding for this largesse? Federal? States? Local? I’m not sure, but it is probably from a combination of the three. Meanwhile, some states and local governments are heading for bankruptcy, and the federal government is running deficits that are unsustainable.

In many locales the sheer volume of illegals has overwhelmed social services to the detriment of opportunities for American children, particularly with respect to education, social services, health services, and recreational opportunities. Moreover, the government doesn’t seem to have enough funds or doesn’t care to provide basic services to many military veterans. All too often, the Dems have demonstrated a preference to take care of the needs of illegal migrants over those of American citizens.

In the last few days, in the wake of Hurricane Helene a more unbelievable situation has been exposed. As we all know, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) is responsible for assisting victims of disasters such as hurricanes. tornadoes, floods, and the like. Typically, these victims are in the most dire of circumstances. They have lost their homes and their personal property. They may need emergency rescue from rubble or flood waters. They may be unable to locate loved ones. They are without basic services such as food, water, shelter, medicine and internet services. As I write this it is being reported that some 700,000 homes and businesses are still without power, approximately one week after Helene passed through. This is unbelievable and unacceptable.

People are overwrought. In short, they are suffering through the worst times of their lives. They need emergency help, and they need it NOW, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, NOW. In times such as this they rely on FEMA to provide those services. Hours matter. Days matter. Often, this is life or death.

That brings us to the current situation, the aftermath of Hurricane Helene. The following is based on multiple media reports. Helene was one of the most devastating storms in recent years. So far, it ranks as #4 in the US since 1950. It has wreaked havoc and devastation throughout the southeast, affecting six states – FL, GA, NC, SC, TN and VA.

According to published reports at least 200 are known dead, and that number is expected to rise substantially as more bodies are discovered in the rubble and in currently inaccessible areas. Many more are injured or missing. The total damage to property is incalculable at this time. Some houses are buried waist deep in mud. Many cannot or will not be rebuilt. Over 150,000 households have already requested assistance, and according to FEMA spokesman Frank Matranga many more will be doing so. NC Governor Roy Cooper reported that entire towns have been “wiped off the map.” As if that isn’t bad enough many claimants have no or inadequate hurricane damage insurance.

I see two overriding problems. Firstly, FEMA has been slow to provide relief services to many of the areas of devastation, particularly remote areas of North Carolina in and around the Blue Ridge Mountains. As I said, the devastation wrought by Helene was widespread, covering several states including many areas that are relatively inaccessible. That said, FEMA has not done its job. The relief effort appears to be disorganized. People are dying for lack of assistance. FEMA should be doing more.

In the meantime, there have been reports that rather than accepting assistance wherever and whenever it is offered FEMA has actually been slow-walking or even blocking some relief efforts initiated by private citizens. For example, it’s been reported that FEMA has been slow-walking or even blocking Elon Musk’s efforts to restore internet communications in affected areas through his Starlink satellite system. This would be unconscionable.

The other overriding problem is that according to multiple media reports FEMA is running out of funds. It may not have sufficient funds to respond to Hurricane Helene, which is ominous in and of itself. But, even worse, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who supervises the agency, has told reporters that FEMA will not have enough for the rest of the hurricane season, which runs from June 1 – November 30. He stated, “we are expecting another hurricane hitting. …We do not have the funds to make it through the season and what is imminent.”

Biden, Harris and Trump have all toured the area to assess the damage firsthand. Fine, but that is little comfort to those affected. According to Biden it will cost “billions of dollars to deal with this storm and all the communities affected.” Where will the funding come from? It will come from Congress, of course, in the form of a supplemental bill, but the lawmakers will have to act quickly and decisively, two traits they are not known for. Furthermore, Congress will not be back in session until after ED. The leadership will have to figure out a way to get it passed before then. And that is just for Helene. I agree with Mayorkas that we should expect and anticipate other hurricanes before the end of the season.

But that begs the bigger question. Where is the money that is supposed to have been available right now. Congress provides FEMA’s funding every year. The agency gets an operating budget and a disaster relief fund. The funding is to be used to pay for relief from natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes and the like. In addition, the money is to be allocated to pay for rebuilding from past disasters and to protect communities proactively from prospective disasters. When and if its funds run low it can and does request Congress for “immediate needs funding.” Congress recently approved an additional $20 million for this, but apparently it is mostly gone.

One might ask, how could this happen? What is the remedy? Where has the funding gone? Why didn’t FEMA anticipate this shortfall and request sufficient funding before? Why delay until it’s a crisis? Good questions.

Like most everything else, the answer appears to be political. According to the NY Post, Fox News, various GOP politicians, including Donald Trump, and outside observers such as Elon Musk a major reason for the shortfall is that BH have authorized diverting some $641 million in the current year from FEMA’s emergency fund to pay for various services for migrants. During the last two years the figure is reported to amount to around $1.4 billion. According to the NY Post the DHS has admitted that it “allocated” funds from FEMA’s Shelter and Services Program for funding migrants’ needs.

If this is correct it is downright scandalous and perhaps illegal. In any event, it is another clear case of the Dem government giving preference to illegal migrants over US citizens. Rep Matt Gaetz has reported that his office has received multiple reports from “whistle blowers” confirming this misuse of funds.

Meanwhile according to multiple media reports FEMA has offered affected families $750 for groceries. That paltry amount won’t begin to cover a family’s needs.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott urged Mayorkas and FEMA to “immediately stop spending money on illegal immigration resettlement and redirect those funds to areas hit by [Helene]. Put Americans first.” He is not alone. Congressman Jim Jordan was more blunt. “The Biden-Harris administration took more than a billion tax dollars that had been allocated to FEMA for disaster relief and used it to house illegal aliens. … They’ve abandoned American hurricane victims in NC, GA, FL, SC, and TN [and VA].” Their remarks were echoed by many others.

The Dems and their allies in the media deny these allegations, but I believe them. It is plausible to me. All that migrant money had to come from somewhere, and the feds have been known to play games with interagency funding before.

CONCLUSION

This is another example of the incompetence and deception of the BH Administration. They secretly reallocated funds to pay for migrant services. In doing so, they have severely depleted FEMA’s funds. They acted surreptitiously hoping that no one would find out, because they knew it would be very unpopular, very damaging politically, and possibly illegal. Now, it appears that there may not be sufficient funds to care for Americans who have been devastated by Hurricane Helene, and there is a risk that there will not be sufficient funds for prospective natural disasters this year. They figuratively got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

The Dems and their allies in the media are denying this, but they have lied about many other things in the past few years, so I don’t think they should get the benefit of the doubt in this case. I would like Congress to commence an investigation into this matter to ascertain the perpetrators of this gross misuse of funds.

Moreover, we should keep in mind that the election is only one month away. In my last blog I opined that the manner in which KK handles this and the other three serious problems I discussed – the dockworkers’ strike and the wars in Ukraine and the ME – would have a profound effect on the election. She could be a hero or a zero. She dodged a bullet with the dockworkers’ strike with a temporary settlement. Good for her. But so far it appears that her handling of this issue will damage her prospects. Two of the devastated states, Georgia and NC, are swing states, and people will likely remember her incompetence on ED.

by Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

VANCE-WALZ DEBATE

Last Tuesday, October 1, the first, and probably only, debate between VP nominees J. D. Vance and Tim Walz was telecast on CBS. The network reported that an estimated 43 million persons watched it. This sounds like a lot, but it was a sizeable decrease from the estimated 58 million who watched the 2020 VP nominee debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris.

For the most part, as one might expect, the post-debate analysis of who won followed along party lines. As I said after the Trump-Harris debate the key is not who “won,” but the post-debate effect on the polls. Often, they are not synchronized. So far, the post-debate polls have moved slightly in favor of Trump, but the race remains extremely close, and an unforeseen external event could be decisive. More on this below.

My analysis and opinion of the debate is as follows:

  1. Both candidates were unusually cordial to one another. There was some animosity but not nearly to the level of other debates. It was almost as if the two of them were going out for a beer after the debate.
  2. In general, Vance seemed more polished, more professional, more presidential and in better command of the facts and issues. On the other hand, Walz came across as uncomfortable, nervous and jittery. A few times he exhibited a “deer in the headlights” look.
  3. Once again, the moderators were biased in favor of the Dem. For example, even though all parties had agreed that the moderators would remain neutral and refrain from fact-checking they did so to Vance on a few occasions. Finally, he had to remind them that it had been agreed beforehand they wouldn’t do so.
  4. I objected to the selection of questions. For example, there was no question regarding the violent protests in 2020 that wreaked destruction on many cities, including Minneapolis. As you may recall, Walz had resisted requesting assistance from the MN National Guard for several days. Moreover, he and his wife kept the windows in their home open the better to see, hear and smell the protests and fires in Minneapolis. How weird was that? There was no mention of Walz’ “stolen valor.” He retired from his Guard unit (essentially quit) when he heard it was going to deploy overseas, which has drawn much rancor from other members of his unit. Finally, there was no question on fracking, which is one of, if not the, key issues in the key swing state of PA. These were all issues on which Harris-Walz was vulnerable. I would have loved to hear Walz’s explanation regarding them.
  5. Walz had two particularly bad moments. He uttered two sound bites that people will remember, even those who did not watch the debate. They will likely be repeated over and over again on social media and in political advertisements. (1) He confused a trip to China with one to Hong Kong. That was when he uttered his soon to be famous “knucklehead” comment. The second one was when he stated he had become “friendly” with “school shooters.”
  6. Walz’s best moment occurred with respect to the 2020 election. Vance was reluctant to acknowledge that Trump had lost, but he did denote that Trump had asked demonstrators going to the capitol to protest “peacefully and patriotically” and that Trump had repeatedly requested additional security, which was denied.
  7. The Dems continue to bring up two issues about which they lie – the 2025 Project and abortion. Trump has repeatedly denied any knowledge of or involvement with Project 2025, and he has reiterated time and again that pursuant to SCOTUS’ recent ruling the issue of abortion has been relegated to each state where the voters will decide that state’s policy. Give it up, already!
  8. Walz was weak regarding the ME conflict. He refused to state that Harris’ support for Israel was “iron clad.” Vance pointed out that there had been no conflicts during Trump’s presidency.
  9. The analyses of most commentators fell along party lines, although the NY Times opined that “Vance dominated the debate,” and some members of CNN’s post-debate round table said they were “disappointed” with Walz’s performance. Full disclosure: CNN disclosed that according to its post-debate instant poll there was no “clear-cut” winner.
  10. On the GOP side, Newt Gingrich was particularly effusive in rating Vance’s performance. He commented that he (Vance) showed “exactly how to do it (the debate).” He added that Vance “handled the [biased] moderators [well] and vindicated Trump’s judgment in picking him [as his running mate.”
  11. The implication was that Harris exhibited poor judgement in selecting Walz. That renewed speculation that PA Governor Josh Shapiro would have been the better choice, but he was passed over to appease the antisemitic leftwing of the party.
  12. Initial post-debate polls have shown a slight movement in favor of Trump, but the race remains extremely close with any advantages in the swing states still within the margin for error. Matt Towery, pollster and Fox News political analyst, declared that Vance had the better performance, and that Trump should receive a “bump” (in the polls).
  13. Robert Cahaly, chief pollster for the Trafalgar Group, was particularly impressed with the manner in which Vance handled the issue of climate change. Vance had pointed out that if Harris and her allies truly cared about the effect of fossil fuels on the environment, they would seek to use American-produced energy as it is much cleaner and more environment-friendly than energy produced elsewhere.

CONCLUSION

I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on the VP debate. All the polls say the election remains a virtual dead heat. There is still a month to go before ED, although early voting has already commenced in some states.

History tells us that a lot can happen between now and ED to influence the election. For example, there are four current events – the destruction wrought by Hurricane Helene, the war in the ME, the war in Ukraine, and the dockworkers’ strike – any one of which could have a decisive effect. Harris has the chance to boost her candidacy or doom it depending on how she handles them.

Also, there could be some unforeseen event such as a 9/11-style terror attack, another deadly natural disaster or some other unforeseen event. For example, some of you may recall Superstorm Sandy, which occurred on October 29, 2012 and had a significant impact on the 2012 election.

This is a most critical election, and all indications are that it will be historically close and go down to the wire. Stay tuned.

by Tags: , , , Leave a comment

PETE ROSE

Pete Rose was an enigma. There were two distinct sides to him. On the one hand, he was a highly skilled baseball player, arguably one of the best of his generation. He played the game with a passion that few could match, and his accomplishments, both individually and as part of a team, speak for themselves.

On the other hand, he disrespected the game he loved by breaking the most sacred rule, the rule that goes to the very integrity of the game. He bet on baseball games, even on his own team. When he was caught, he compounded the crime by denying it. As a result, baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti suspended him decreed him to be ineligible for the Hall of Fame for life.

Eventually, he admitted the transgression, but when commissioner Bud Selig asked him why he did it, he replied “I didn’t think I’d get caught.” As a result of his actions and his vehement denials he has remained ineligible for the HOF. More on this later.

Peter Edward Rose was born on April 14, 1941 in Cincinnati, Ohio. At Western Hills High School in Cincinnati, he excelled in both baseball and football. Upon graduation he was not a highly regarded prospect but fortuitously one of his uncles was a “Bird Dog” scout for the Cincinnati Reds. He convinced the Reds to take a chance on Pete.

Rose progressed rapidly through the minors, and in three years he made the majors. He was a star from the beginning. He was named Rookie of the Year in 1963.

Rose was known for his hustling and aggressive playing style. He was the first player I can remember who sprinted to first base when he was “walked.” Most every other player jogs to the base. This characteristic earned him the amusing nickname “Charlie Hustle.”

Rose played 24 years in the Majors for three teams – the Cincinnati Reds, the Philadelphia Phillies and the Montreal Expos. He also managed the Reds for five years (1984-1989). However, he is best known for his tenure with the Reds. He was an integral part of the “Big Red Machine” teams, which dominated the NL during the mid-1970s. The team featured Hall of Famers such as Joe Morgan, Tony Perez and Johnny Bench plus Rose, and won the World Series in 1975 and 1976. He was a switch hitter and one of the most prolific ever. His lifetime batting average was .303, which was good but not among the all-time leaders.

However, Rose holds numerous MLB records, as well as a bunch of NL and switch-hitting records, too many to name them all here. They include:

  1. Rookie of the Year (1963)
  2. 17 times an All-Star.
  3. An All-Star at five different positions (1st base, 2nd base, 3rd base, left field and right field).
  4. Three-time NL batting champion (1968, 1969, & 1973)
  5. Three times a World Series champion (1975, 1976 and 1980).
  6. NL MVP (1973).
  7. World Series MVP (1975).
  8. Two Gold Glove Awards (1969 & 1970).
  9. Silver Slugger Award (1981).
  10. MLB All-Century Team

For all his positive achievements Rose’s playing career was marred by two incidents, which were a direct result of his aggressive style of play:

  1. In Game Three of the 1973 NL Championship Series with the NY Mets he got into a fight with Mets shortstop Bud Harrelson, which incited a bench-clearing brawl. Harrelson was a very popular player, so Mets fans commenced to throwing debris at Rose. The Reds manager, Sparky Anderson pulled his team off the field until order was restored. Generally, Rose was perceived as the instigator and the villain, at least in NY.
  2. During the 1970 All-Star game he barreled violently into catcher Ray Fosse while trying to score bowling him over and separating his shoulder. It was a brutal hit directly onto Fosse’s right (throwing) shoulder. While homeplate collisions were common (unlike now), many observers thought the hit was excessive since the All-Star game was essentially an exhibition game. Fosse always said he had “never [been] hit like that before,” and Rose “never apologized.” Rose was unapologetic. His explanation was “I’ve got to do everything I can to score there.” Again, Rose was the bad guy. Fosse played several more years, but he was never the same player.

As I said, the big stain on Rose’s baseball career was that he bet on baseball games. This is considered to be the worst transgression, because it damages the very integrity of the game. Nothing can be allowed to cause the fans to doubt the integrity of the sport. This attitude dates back to the infamous Chicago Black Sox scandal in which eight Chicago White Sox players were found to have conspired to “throw” the 1919 World Series. Even though the case against some of the players was weak, all eight were banned for life. This set the precedent with respect to gambling on the sport. No warnings. No suspensions. Lifetime ban.

Rose was definitely guilty. At first, he denied it, but MLB had conclusive, overwhelming evidence. Rose was banned for life. Moreover, he is permanently ineligible for the Hall of Fame, although he has managed to earn a living from his notoriety as a former player by selling his autograph at card shows and the like for a fee. He can often be found at Cooperstown during the week of HOF inductions.

Rose’s personal life was characterized by controversy. He was married twice, divorced twice, and fathered four children one of which, Petey, had a brief MLB career. He was accused of statuary rape of a 14-year-old girl. Rose didn’t deny it, but he claimed he didn’t know the girl was a minor. The case was settled out of court and dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Many of Rose’s fans had hoped that he would somehow become eligible for the HOF before he died. While it’s true that in the intervening years MLB’s attitude toward gambling has changed that has not helped Rose’s cause. MLB now actually advertises sports betting parlors, but that applies to the general public, not to players or other persons connected to the game. Some may see that as a distinction without a difference, but it is what it is.

Pete Rose passed away on September 30, 2024. He remains a controversial figure. He also remains ineligible for the HOF.

by Tags: , , , Leave a comment

ISRAEL TAKES OUT LONGTIME HEZBOLLAH LEADER WITH MASSIVE AIR STRIKE

Over this past weekend, in another act of defiance aimed at the Biden-Harris Administration (“BH”), the UN and all of its other critics throughout the world Israel unleashed multiple massive air attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon killing longtime Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and various additional members of the terror group’s leadership. Among the dead was Nabil Kaouk, who had been viewed as a possible successor to Nasrallah. The attack was so powerful that it leveled six buildings in the vicinity. Israel has now killed seven of Hezbollah’s top leaders in the space of just over one week.

As we know, since the Muslim terror attacks Last October 7 BH has been urging Israel to temper its response. Among other things, BH has repeatedly urged Israel to pursue a “measured” response (whatever that is), publicly criticized President Netanyahu’s aggressive prosecution of the war, called for him to resign, slow-walked military aid, and continually pushed for a cease fire and peace negotiations with a two-state solution (which neither side wants). Israel, as is its wont, has pushed back against what it deems to be unwarranted interference. It has reiterated many times that it will continue to attack aggressively until it has achieved its goal of destroying the fighting capability of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. This attack is the latest iteration.

This attack was the culmination of a long-term intelligence operation. These attacks were very cleverly planned over years. As a result of extensive hacking and surveillance Israel was able to acquire copious amounts of information with respect to Hezbollah’s top leaders, including personal information and their travel routines. For instance, Israeli spies were able to hack various surveillance cameras in Lebanon and even monitor the odometers on their cars. This paid off on Friday as Israel was able to pinpoint Nasrallah’s precise location.

Israel had developed special powerful ordnance specifically designed to penetrate 60 feet underground to where it knew the terrorists were hiding. It deployed approximately 80 tons of these bombs. The terrorists had no clue of the Israelis’ capabilities to penetrate their bunker. They thought they were safe. They were, until they weren’t. Kudos to the Israelis.

Additionally, yesterday, the IDF launched a massive attack against the Houthis. The key targets included the group’s facilities in the vicinity of the ports of Ras Issa and Hodeida and several power plants in the area. This was in retaliation for the Houthis’ attempting to shoot down Netanyahu’s plane on Friday.

CONCLUSION

President Netanyahu characterized Nasrallah’s death as an “historic turning point” in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.” Perhaps, it was a tad hyperbolic, but there is little doubt that Hezbollah, with its leadership decimated, was dealt a serious blow.

In my opinion, these attacks sent a clear and direct message to the terrorists and Iran, their sponsor, which is that there is no longer any safe hiding place. The world now knows that (1) Israel is capable of launching bunker-buster bombs that can penetrate to the terrorists’ hideouts deep underground; (2) Israel has the technology to enable it to ascertain the whereabouts of them at any time; and (3) Israel has the resolve to use its new ordnance and technology whenever and wherever it chooses.

by Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

KOMRADE KAMALA’S RADICAL TAX PLAN

Komrade Kamala (“KK”) has proposed a radical new tax plan. Like many socialist proposals at first, it appears to be attractive but upon detailed analysis the luster fades rapidly, and the warts become evident. As always, “the devil is in the details” and one must beware of unintended consequences. Read on, and I will explain.

Essentially, KK’s plan is a wealth tax, and its intent is a redistribution of wealth. This is consistent with classic socialist/communist doctrine, which should not be surprising given Harris’ real “core values” that she espoused during her entire political career until she became the Dem nominee for president. Many of its provisions are consistent with the proposed Ultra-Millionaire Tax Bill of 2021, which was sponsored by Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and other far-lefties. That particular bill was not passed for various reasons, but the general idea of it is still popular with the far left.

As I have explained repeatedly, at her core KK is a socialist/communist. Her basic instincts are to replace capitalism and free enterprise with government administration and control in virtually all aspects of one’s life. She has advocated replacing our capitalist economic system, which is based on free enterprise, competition and private sector decision-making, with public sector (government) decision-making. For example, she has been advocating government-administered price controls in the economy to eliminate what she perceives as “price gouging” even though there has been no evidence of it. Similarly, under the guise of providing everyone, including illegal aliens, access to free healthcare she has been advocating an aggressive revamping our healthcare system to a single-payer system that would be administered and controlled by the federal government. Her proposed tax plan would be consistent with those precepts. As we have seen time and time again, anything administered by the government becomes plagued with inefficiency and waste.

Like most tax plans hers is complicated. Moreover, it is too vague and not well reasoned. Even proponents of the general idea should realize that there are a multitude of rough edges that need to be clarified. Like I said above, the devil is in the details and beware of unintended consequences. Below please find my opinions and comments regarding KK’s tax plan.

With respect to the “wealth tax” provision:

  1. According to the Tax Foundation such a tax has never been implemented in the US. A handful of other countries have tried it, but most were forced to abandon it due to unforeseen problems.
  2. The proposal would penalize savers, discourage economic growth, discourage entrepreneurship and investment in start-ups, decrease employment, and increase the trade deficit, among other ramifications.
  3. For starters, according to Wikipedia the paramount issue is that some legal scholars question the constitutionality of such a tax. Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution precludes any “capitation or other direct tax.” Because of this clause in 1895 SCOTUS declared that a federal income tax was unconstitutional. Subsequently, Congress passed the 16th Amendment, which made a federal income tax constitutional, however, the amendment did not cover a “wealth tax.” This matter would have to be resolved or else the proposal would be “dead on arrival.”
  4. Its primary purpose is to eliminate, or at least substantially reduce, the wealth gap by mandating that the uber-wealthy pay their “fair share.” What does that phrase even mean? What would constitute a “fair share?” It is so vague as to be meaningless. Is it a higher percentage? If so, how high? Also, how does one define “wealthy” or “uber-wealthy? I suppose all that depends on one’s economic status and one’s political point of view. But you can see how the murkiness complicates the issue.
  5. It is fashionable, in some quarters to want to punish the rich for being rich. These people want to take away some of their wealth and spread it around. This ignores the fact that income and wealth disparity is a natural consequence of our free market, capitalist system. Some people will always be more ambitious, more industrious, smarter, more willing to take chances to succeed, or just be luckier than others. Our system rewards that. The attitude of the masses should not be to confiscate wealth from the rich, but to aspire to become rich, themselves.
  6. In my view, “equality” means “equal opportunity.” It does not advocate some sort of balancing act where the rich keep giving and the needy keep taking until everyone has an equal amount of wealth. That is fatuous on its face. History tells us it cannot be legislated. Even in Russia there is a small group of rich and superrich persons, and the vast majority are poor.
  7. In the opinion of former Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, the cost of implementation, administration and enforcement of a wealth tax would be extremely expensive, cumbersome and problematic.
  8. How would assets be valued, particularly illiquid ones such as land, a farm, a ranch or a business? In my opinion, this would be the most inequitable and troublesome aspect of KK’s proposal. Taxpayers would be required to pay tax based on an unrealized gain with respect to assets that they had not sold. Therefore, they might be forced to sell their business, farm, ranch, or house to raise the money to pay the tax. This particular provision was most troublesome to the Tax Foundation as well.
  9. Furthermore, who would ascribe a value, the owner, the IRS, a government bureaucrat with limited knowledge of the worth of the asset, or someone else? This would be a particularly troublesome issue.
  10. I presume the IRS would enforce the tax. That would also be problematic. Public confidence in the fairness and competence of the IRS is at an all-time low, and no one would want more government intrusion in their lives.
  11. Inevitably, the wealthy would find and exploit loopholes. They always do. Consequently, there would be contested valuations and lawsuits with all the ancillary problems.
  12. Some wealthy would be tempted to transfer assets out of the country or perhaps relocate. Such people have the wherewithal to do so. The question is would they have the motivation? This became a problem in other countries that had enacted a wealth tax, which ultimately forced them to abandon it. For example, in 2018 France’s President Emmanuel Macron noted that it had resulted in brain drain, loss of jobs, and flight of capital. This could be negated by including an “exit tax” in the proposal, although I’m not sure how it would work or if it would even be legal.
  13. Very likely, it would discourage foreign investment in businesses, real estate and the like.

In addition to the aforementioned wealth tax KK’s tax proposal would raise tax rates on corporations. Presently, thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (“TCJA”) enacted during the Trump presidency the US has a very competitive corporate tax rate of 21%. This encourages both domestic corporations to remain in the US and foreign corporations to invest here. That translates to economic growth and lower unemployment.

In addition, the TCJA reduced individual tax rates. Unfortunately, the TCJA is set to expire in 2025, and KK will be unlikely to extend it. Therefore, the corporate tax rate will revert to its pre-TCJA level of 35%. Consequently, corporations will be incentivized to invest elsewhere rather than in the US. Also, corporations typically pass on such tax increases to you, the consumer, in the form of higher prices, which feeds inflation. More bad news, individual tax rates will also revert to pre-UCJA levels, which means a top rate of 39.6%.

CONCLUSION

Frankly speaking, the KK tax plan would be an unmitigated disaster for most individuals and the US economy as a whole. Don’t be seduced by her “mantra of tax the rich” and make them “pay their fair share.” As I said, this is a typical lefty idea. It sounds good on the surface, but it would lead to unforeseen problems in practice. If one takes the time to analyze it in detail the warts become apparent. It’s just a ploy to divert your attention away from the disastrous Biden-Harris economic policies of the last 3 1/2 years.


KK thinks that her plan will raise more revenue to pay off the deficit. In my opinion, it will have the opposite effect. Directly as a result of the Biden-Harris Administration’s wild, irresponsible deficit spending, notably the stimulus packages that were enacted against the advice of even progressive economists, the budget deficit is already projected to exceed $2 trillion this year. Moreover, absent policy changes it is projected to double to $4 trillion within ten years. Folks, this level of spending is unsustainable.

She and her advisors who developed this proposal have demonstrated repeatedly that they know next to nothing about economics and business. It’s astounding but true. History tells us unequivocally that tax increases stifle economic growth, and tax reductions spur economic growth. Growth actually results in increased revenues. Many of you will remember the Reagan Tax Cuts, which illustrate my point. Don’t be gaslighted.

by Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment