What Does China Want? Xi Jing’s “China Dream”

/in , /by

In his first speech after taking office as the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, Xi Jinping employed a phrase not used in public by previous Chinese leaders – qiang zhongguo meng, or “strong nation dream” (1). Since then, Xi and other Chinese leaders have repeatedly referred to the “dream” of “resurrecting” or “rejuvenating” China as a great power. Many observers have characterized the “China Dream” as Chinese leaders’ natural desire to recoup China’s position as the universally recognized “Great State” in Asia following the “century of humiliation” that began with the Sino-British Opium Wars (1839-1860) and culminated with the Japanese invasion and occupation of China (1937-1945), a period during which China was subjugated and carved up by foreign powers. In this view, the goal of the “China Dream” is to make China so wealthy and powerful that it will never again be subject to such treatment (2). Proponents of this view of the “China Dream” tend to argue that a “rejuvenated” China will take its rightful place as a responsible great power in the current rule-based international system.

Other analysts have taken a less benign view of the “China Dream” and what it means for the rest of the world. In China’s Vision of Victory, Jonathan T. Ward characterized the “China Dream” as the vision lying at the core of a global grand strategy intended to assert China’s central position in the world (3). Michael Pillsbury, in The Hundred Year Marathon, argued that the “China Dream” in fact represents China’s intent to create a new China-centric world order, an ambition he traced back to Mao Zedong.

Ideology is Still Central

Much of the discourse on the “China Dream” has been based on the unfounded assumption (or wishful thinking) that China’s economic growth would somehow result in both economic liberalization and democratization. This assumption fundamentally disregards the nature of the Chinese state. The People’s Republic of China is an enduring communist party-state in which the “Chinese nation” and its interests are synonymous with those of the CCP (4). Under Xi, the “core navigator and helmsman” who is likely to remain in power for at least the next 10 years (5), China’s communist identity has been reinforced and the CCP remains resolutely Marxist, Stalinist, Leninist, and Maoist. According to Alice Ekman, Senior Analyst of Asian Issues at the European Union Institute for Security Studies, all political and social activities in China are controlled by the CCP according to a rigid Leninist and Stalinist model which, if anything, has been reinforced by Xi both in theory and in practice. At the same time, the role of the CCP in the Chinese economy has increased substantially. Marxism, Ekman concludes, is at the core of Xi’s China (6).

In Xi’s view “coexistence” between capitalist and Communist societies is…unavoidable, for a while, perhaps for decades. But Western democratic and capitalist countries are fundamental enemies of Communism, hence of China. While the economical confrontation may go through different stages, the ideological confrontation is perpetual and can only end with the victory of one side, i.e., of Communism, since Marx’s predictions are regarded by Xi Jinping as infallible (7).

Ekman’s analysis is important because it lays aside the “China is no longer communist” rhetoric for a much more realist – and more historically accurate – view of a centralized party-state whose rulers remain ideologically and practically committed to the global victory of communism. This would mark not only the final victory of Marxism, of which Xi is apparently convinced, but also the ascension of a China with a “strong desire for redress, if not vengeance, for past national humiliations” (8) to a position of global dominance.

The “China Dream” as Grand Strategy

In its widest sense, strategy refers to the coordinated use of instruments of national power – diplomatic, military, economic, and informational – to achieve national objectives. A nation’s grand strategy reflects the vision a nation has for itself and seeks to systematically leverage available instruments of national power to shape the international environment in ways that reflect the values of the state and serve its national interests (9). In matters of international relations, a state’s true intentions may be unknown or subject to change, while its capabilities and behaviors are generally visible. Granted that the PRC has not published a detailed description of what realization of the “China Dream” actually entails, China’s capabilities, actions, and their likely impacts are readily discernible.

The 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States characterized China as a “revisionist power” engaged in long-term strategic competition with the United States. “It is increasingly clear that China [wants] to shape a world consistent with [its] authoritarian model – gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions.” While China’s near-term goal is to seek regional hegemony in the Indo-Pacific region, its long-term goal is to seek “displacement of the United States to achieve global preeminence in the future.” China, the Strategy noted, pursues a long-term, all-of-nation strategy to assert power through a combination of military modernization initiatives, predatory and coercive economic measures, and influence operations (10).

In 2019, the U.S. – China Economic and Security Review Commission found that Beijing [has] stepped up its efforts to promote itself as a global political and economic leader, offering the clearest evidence yet of its ambition to reshape the international order so it benefits Chinese interests and makes the world safe for the [Chinse Communist Party]….[As part of this effort] China [has] continued its efforts to coerce or interfere in the domestic affairs of countries acting in ways contrary to its interests, detaining foreign media, and the Chinese diaspora (11).

Finally, in 2020, a group of researchers at the U.S. Army War College found that China “does not seek to participate as an equal in the existing [international] order. Instead, it seeks to lead a China-centric order where China’s interests come first, and other countries are left to fight for what little is left” (12). That’s what China wants – that’s what the “China Dream” really means.

_____________________

NOTES

(1) Michael Pillsbury, The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower (New York, NY: Henry Holt, 2015), 27.
(2) Timothy Brook, Great State: China and the World (London, UK: Profile Books, 2019); Brendan Taylor and Richard Rigby, “Meridians of Influence in a Nervous World,” in China Story Yearbook 2019: China Dreams, ed. Jane Golley, Linda Jaivan, Ben Hollman, and Shawn Strange (Acton, Australia: Australian National University Press, 2020), 95; Yearbook 2019: China Dreams – The China Story, accessed December 30, 2020.
(3) Jonathan T. Ward, China’s Vision of Victory (Atlas Publishing and Media Company, 2019).
(4) Gloria Davies, “A Dream of Perpetual Rule,” in China Story Yearbook 2019, 31.
(5) This title was conferred on Xi at the Fifth Plenary Session of the CCP in October 2020. Willy Wo-Lap Lam, “Helmsman Xi Jinping Primed to Rule at Least Until the Early 2030s,” Jamestown Foundation China Brief 20, Issue 20 (November 13, 2020), 8; Read-the-11-13-2020-CB-Issue.pdf (jamestown.org), accessed December 30, 2020.
(6) Massimo Introvigne, “China is Communist. Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, and Maoist,” Bitter Winter: A Magazine on Religious Liberty and Human Rights, April 24, 2020; “China is Communist. Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, and Maoist” (bitterwinter.org), accessed December 30, 2020.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Gerry Groot, “Making the World Safe (For China),” in China Story Yearbook 2016: Control, ed. Jane Golley, Linda Jaivin, and Luigi Tomba (Acton, Australia: Australian National University Press, 2017), 281; Yearbook 2016: Control – The China Story, accessed December 30, 2020.
(9) Joint Chiefs of Staff, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, Joint Publication 1, Washington, DC: 25 March 2013, Incorporating Change 1, 12 July 2017, I-1; I-7;  accessed December 30 2020; Nadège Rolland, “The Belt and Road Initiative: China’s Grand Strategy,” in Angela Stanzel, Nadège Rolland, Jabin Jacob, and Melanie Hart, Grand Designs: Does China Have a ‘Grand Strategy’? (Berlin, GE: European Council on Foreign Relations, 2017), 5 accessed December 30, 2020.
(10) Office of the Secretary of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge (Washington, DC: 2018), 2
(11) U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2019 Report to Congress: Executive Summary and Recommendations (Washington, DC: November 2019), 7;  accessed December 30, 2020.
(12) Lieutenant Colonel John Schaus, Brian Evans, and Colonel Elizabeth Martin, A Changing Indo-Pacific Region: Growing Complexity for the Six Anchor Nations, Indo-Pacific Theater Design Working Paper 2 (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, September 2020), 3-4; A Changing Indo-Pacific Region: The Anchor Partners (armywarcollege.edu), accessed December 30, 2020.

*****

The author is a retired U.S. Army officer and a retired civilian employee of the U.S. Department of Defense. He holds an MS in Strategic Intelligence from the Joint Military Intelligence College (now National Intelligence University), and an MA in National Security and Strategic Studies from the U.S. Naval War College. His published work has appeared in The Journal of Strategic Studies, Israel Affairs, Parameters, The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, and the International Bulletin of Political Psychology.

Why the Real Villain of 2020 Was Big Government

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

COVID-19 was going to be bad, no matter what. But the failures of big government made it much, much worse.

The disaster that was 2020 is finally over. Now it’s time for the inevitable post-mortems.
First and foremost, the COVID-19 pandemic posed enormous challenges to American institutions, and continues to do so. Frankly, we were not prepared. We need to diagnose what went wrong, so that we are never caught unaware like this again. Fortunately, the diagnosis is straightforward. COVID-19 was going to be bad, no matter what. But the failures of big government made it much, much worse.
In particular, the Centers for Disease Control, Food and Drug Administration, and public teachers’ unions are the great American villains of 2020. Meanwhile, the heroes of this year are almost entirely in the private sector. From Zoom to vaccine development, Big Pharma and Big Tech—yes, you read that right—made this horrible year bearable. Even amid a crisis that led so many to cry out for vigorous government action, we saw that private markets still work best.
For progressives and so-called “national” conservatives who support big government, 2020 represented the ultimate test for their philosophies. Although they disagree on cultural issues, they see eye-to-eye on the role of government. Both want a big, energetic state promoting what (they believe to be) the good of the nation. Well, here was their chance for the government to shine.
The result was shameful failure. The COVID-19 crisis put left-wing and right-wing statism on trial—and both were found guilty of ill-intent and gross incompetence.
After all, the CDC is the reason America lagged behind other nations for so long in terms of COVID-19 testing. We had the virus genome fully mapped in January, which enabled the rapid production of private testing kits. But the CDC forced these operations to shut down, coming up with its own test—which was flawed, and even contaminated! Testing and tracing could have stemmed the worst of the COVID-19 tide.
On this issue alone, CDC ineptitude is likely responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Its red tape and incompetence made containing the COVID-19 pandemic, like a few other countries were able to, impossible.
How about the FDA?
It is no secret that the vaccine was delayed because it needed FDA approval. Indeed, several working vaccines could have come much earlier, were it not for our bungling bureaucrat gatekeepers. (Dear FDA: Can you please speed things up a little, so people do not, you know, die? It would make us ever so happy if you did. Thanks.)
As for schools, the data show that young people and children are at very low-risk from COVID-19, and that schools are not “super spreaders.” Despite this, largely due to pressure from public teachers’ unions, many schools remained closed in the fall. In fact, the US was pretty much the only country to pursue the alarmist policy of keeping schools closed.
The toll on school-aged children is immense, from psychological trauma to impeded learning. Low-income families were hit especially hard. They often lacked the means to participate in distance learning, and having their kids at home made it harder for parents to earn much-needed income.
Fortunately, there seems to be some well-deserved backlash against the crony public education establishment. Hopefully a mass exodus to more effective and accountable learning platforms will follow, whether that is charter schools, private schools, or homeschooling. Even more hopefully, parents will realize public education racketeers are not their friends. They should demand loud and clear: Fund students, not systems!
In stark contrast to these unacceptable failures by government agencies and employees, the private sector delivered.
Big Pharma and Big Tech are the winners here. Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and many other companies did amazing work getting the vaccines developed as quickly as they did. Public health “experts” repeatedly claimed a vaccine would not be available for 18 months, at the earliest. (Shows what they know!)
As for Big Tech, companies like Facebook and Twitter helped us stay connected while we were forced physically to remain apart. Amazon responded well to a huge surge in demand, stemming from the curtailment of in-person shopping. Faced with an immense logistical challenge, the online retailer surpassed expectations.
These sectors and their star performers are not perfect, of course.
In the past, Big Pharma lobbied for many of the regulatory roadblocks that made fighting COVID-19 so hard. Big Tech got egg on its face for covering up the Hunter Biden laptop story. Nevertheless, the takeaway is clear: 2020 would have been much, much more miserable without these supposedly evil big businesses in our corner. We owe them far more than we give them.
2021 is the perfect time to revisit our basic beliefs about the role of government and business in society. Both were unexpectedly challenged by the greatest public health crisis in recent memory.
Government failed. Business triumphed. Statism should be discredited, hopefully for an entire generation. Any coherent political philosophy for the 21st century must start from this basic truth.
COLUMN BY

Alexander William Salter

Alexander William Salter is an associate professor of economics in the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University, the Comparative Economics Research Fellow at TTU’s Free Market Institute, and a senior fellow with the American Institute for Economic Research’s Sound Money Project. Follow him on Twitter @alexwsalter.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Elon Musk’s Tesla Made Record Deliveries In 2020 Despite Global Car Demand Slump

/1 Comment/in , , /by


Tesla announced Saturday that it sold a record 499,550 vehicles worldwide in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic, falling just 450 units behind its target of selling half a million cars that year.
Tesla manufactured 509,737 cars — 54,805 units of Model S/X and 454,932 of Model 3/Y — in 2020, approximately 98% of which were sold, according to a press release from the company. The 499,550 vehicles sold included 442,511 units of Model 3/Y and 57,039 of S/X, the release stated. 
At 2020’s start, Tesla stated it would “comfortably exceed 500,000 units” for the year, a target it didn’t revise despite the pandemic, Reuters reported. In October, Chief Financial Officer Zachary Kirkhorn announced Tesla was “aiming to achieve (its) original 2020 guidance.”
Though Tesla fell short of attaining its ambitious goal of delivering 500,000 vehicles in 2020 by about 0.09%, it exceeded analysts’ expectation of 493,000 deliveries for the year by 6,500 units, or around 1.33%, the Wall Street Journal reported.
The company, in 2020, exceeded its 2019 sales count of approximately 367,500 units, according to the WSJ, which marked 35.9% positive growth.
CEO Elon Musk welcomed the numbers as a “major milestone” on Twitter, saying that during Tesla’s early days, he wasn’t sure the company would make it. 


Despite a decline in global demand for new cars during the COVID-19 pandemic, Tesla’s numbers reached their final levels thanks to a steady rise in electric vehicle adoption, according to Reuters, along the demand for Tesla vehicles in China, WSJ reported.
Tesla’s sales in China, ever since it began delivering cars from its new Shanghai plant in late 2019, helped counteract manufacturing slowdowns in the U.S., where Tesla had to shut its Fremont, California plant for multiple weeks starting March 2020 to comply with local COVID-19 safety restrictions, WSJ reported.
Tesla had also seen its stock rise in value by more than 700% in 2020, according to Reuters.
In the forthcoming months, Tesla faces the “difficult” challenge of introducing new vehicle models and opening additional plants in Germany and Texas, as part of Musk’s expansion plans, WSJ said.
COLUMN BY

ANDREW JOSE

Contributor. Follow Andrew on Twitter.
RELATED ARTICLE: Elon Musk Joins Mass California Exodus, Moves To Texas
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Governor Noem Says South Dakota Has ‘Perhaps The Strongest Economy’ in Country After Refusing Lockdowns

/in , , , , , /by


South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s response to the global pandemic has been superb. She rightfully refused to shut down her state despite ridicule from the Left. Today, South Dakota’s economy is red hot. As such, American’s are moving to South Dakota in droves. Like Governor DeSantis, Governor Noem will be a force in the 2024 Republican primaries.

Governor Says South Dakota Has “Perhaps The Strongest Economy” in Country After Refusing Lockdowns

By: Dan Bongino Show, January 1, 2020
Despite the fact that lockdowns do enormous amounts of economic damage, they’ve proven to be almost completely ineffective at stopping the coronavirus.
One of the governors that understood this early on was South Dakota’s Kristi Noem. Noem was savagely criticized by liberals that pointed to the tiny state’s high rate of infection as evidence that she needed to shut everything down. However the state has only had a grand total of 1488 coronavirus-related deaths and yesterday, they had a mere 444 new cases. Meanwhile, unlike many liberal states that aggressively shut down their businesses, South Dakota’s economy hasn’t been decimated this year.

The national unemployment rate is 6.7% and states like New York and California that have heavily relied on lockdowns to control the coronavirus have unemployment rates over 8%. As you may have heard, people and businesses are fleeing both of those states. So, how is South Dakota doing on that front? It looks like they’re doing pretty well.

How much of the economic misery we’ve seen this year was caused by the coronavirus and how much of it was actually caused by the overreaction of state governments to the coronavirus? South Dakota’s experience suggests most of the economic damage we saw this year was self-inflicted. That doesn’t mean the coronavirus isn’t serious and it doesn’t mean that we all shouldn’t take steps to avoid getting it. However, is it worth economically crushing a lot of small businesses and impoverishing so many people for lockdowns that don’t even seem to work? Some of us were asking that question months ago and South Dakota’s experience seems to suggest that we were on the right track.

RELATED ARTICLE: BREAKING: Three Arrested for Brutal Beating and Torture of Former GOP Senate Candidate
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

A Feel Good Story to End a Challenging Year

/in , , , , /by

The year 2020 most people would love to erase from the calendar. A worldwide pandemic caused shutdowns and premature deaths. Then there was our year-long contentious national election. Let’s end the year with a story that will bring a smile to your face and possibly a tear to your eye. While it recently came to my attention, it is not new so you may have heard the story. Regardless, it is well worth reading as we launch ourselves into a much brighter 2021.

It is about a poor Mexican American kid who grew up in a Southern California household with 14 family members. He struggled in school and had meager success learning English. He left formal education in the fourth grade and went to work at odd jobs and on farms for years. Then he had a chance to get a job that was a step up.

His wife had to fill out the application because of his weak English skills. He got a janitorial position and a big pay boost to $4 per hour (this was back in 1970s). His grandfather understood something I taught my children as young adults. No matter what job you are doing be the best at it. Be proud of the job you do. His grandfather told him “make sure that floor shines. And let them know a Montañez mopped it”.

Richard set off to become the best janitor the company ever had. When he wasn’t mopping and cleaning, he started to learn about the international company for which he worked. He learned about all the company’s products, how they manufactured and marketed them and other aspects of the company. He badgered salespeople to tag along and watch them sell.

A sales slump hit the company a decade after he started there. The world-famous CEO called on all 300,000 employees to “Act like an owner.” He empowered them and Richard took that to heart.

While riding along with a salesperson, Richard noticed there was a shortcoming with one of the major products of the company. It has some varieties, but none that really appealed to the burgeoning Hispanic population. While visiting a store in a Latino neighborhood, this product was placed next to Mexican spices on the rack, but none of those spices were used. He thought Mexicans like spicy and there were no spicy or hot options.

He went home with some of the product from the plant and started testing. He started putting a homemade chili powder on the product. He gave samples to friends and family who found it be a winner. The product was ready to present. Richard just had to get the nerve to make the call.

When he was ready, he called the CEO’s office.

“Mr. Enrico’s office, who is this?”

“Richard Montañez, In California.”

“You’re the VP overseeing California?

“No, I work at the Rancho Cucamonga plant.”

“Oh, so you’re the VP of ops?”

“No, I work inside the plant.”

“You’re the manager?”

“No, I’m the janitor.”

Mr. Enrico took the call. He loved the initiative. He instructed Richard to prepare a presentation and set a meeting two weeks hence when Enrico was planning a visit to the plant. Richard went about studying marketing.Then the day for the meeting came.

The janitor walked into the room with the head honcho together with his support team. After taking a deep breath he started telling the people what he had learned about the company and what he had been working on. He presented the bags with his product inside that he had sealed with a clothing iron and hand decorated with a logo on each.

When he finished his presentation the room fell silent. After a few moments the great Roger Enrico looked at him and said “Put that mop away, you are coming with us.”

From that meeting Frito-Lay birthed Flamin’ Hot Cheetos. It became one of the company’s most successful product launches. It became a cultural sensation.

*****

This article is reproduced by permission of the author. It first appeared in Flash Report December 30, 2020.

VIDEO: Newsmax Host Eviscerates Democratic Lockdowns for Destroying California

/in , , , , /by


This takedown of Democrat California Governor Gavin Newsom was absolutely brutal.
WATCH:

©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: A stronger economy, more investment and a stronger stock market!

/in , , , , /by


GUESTS AND TOPICS:

TRAVIS KORSON
Travis Korson, Director of Public Policy for Frontiers of Freedom and is a veteran of politics with years of experience in campaigns, communications and public policy. Travis previously served in the Bush White House and has spent time at various conservative organizations and government institutions including the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity. Travis regularly appears on television and radio and his expertise has been quoted in several publications including the Washington Post. His works have been published at various outlets including Daily Caller, Townhall, and American

TOPIC: (PETA) uses dishonest campaigns to stop medical innovation and prevent new cures from being discovered.
PHIL KERPEN
Phil Kerpen is the Founder and President of American Commitment. Phil is a leading free-market policy analyst and advocate in Washington. Prior to joining American Commitment, Kerpen was the principal policy and legislative strategist at Americans for Prosperity. He previously worked at the Free Enterprise Fund, the Club for Growth, and the Cato Institute. Kerpen is also a nationally syndicated columnist, chairman of the Internet Freedom Coalition, and author of the book Democracy Denied. How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America – and How to Stop Him.
TOPIC: A stronger economy, more investment and a stronger stock market!
©Conservative Commandoes Radio. All rights reserved.

Arizona Gov. Ducey to China: ‘Lots of opportunities’ to exploit ‘our defense industry, mining and ores’

/in , , , /by

The video is shocking. As Americans only begin to wake up to the reality of just how severely compromised their political leaders are by a communist superpower, Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey’s alarmingly frank language resounds like thunderclaps.

“We just had a great meeting with the Chinese Chamber of Commerce just now. And, very exciting, lots of opportunities, including public-private partnerships. I’ve mentioned semiconducters, electronics, aerospace, our defense industry, mining and ores that we do…. So I think from the franchise business to the aerospace and defense business, we would like to do more business with China, with Chinese business people.”

That is Ducey speaking directly to the Chinese state-run media organ China Daily in July 2017. There is no nice way to spin this. An American governor is captured on video offering up this country’s sensitive military technology and natural resources to a communist foreign nation.

China Daily posted the astonishing interview clip onto YouTube titled “Arizona Governor Discusses Chinese Investments.” The interview was conducted at a China General Chamber of Commerce Welcome Luncheon Forum held during the 2017 National Governors Association meetings in Providence, Rhode Island.

Ducey drew the ire of President Donald Trump when he certified his state’s fraud-riddled election results on Nov. 30. The governor may be no friend of the president, but he is most assuredly considered a pal by China. Ducey has been listed as a “friendly” in a Chinese think tank’s ranking of all 50 governors’ attitudes toward China.

In a Feb. 8 speech, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned that China is actively seeking to cultivate U.S. governors and other local officials for the benefit of the regime. He specifically mentioned the National Governors Association by name:

“Last year, I received an invitation to an event that promised to be, quote, ‘an occasion for exclusive deal-making.’ It said, quote, ‘the opportunities for mutually beneficial economic development between China and our individual states [are] tremendous,’ end of quote.

“Deal-making sounds like it might have come from President Trump, but the invitation was actually from a former governor.

“I was being invited to the U.S.-China Governors’ Collaboration Summit.

“It was an event co-hosted by the National Governors Association and something called the Chinese People’s Association For Friendship and Foreign Countries. Sounds pretty harmless.

“What the invitation did not say is that the group – the group I just mentioned – is the public face of the Chinese Communist Party’s official foreign influence agency, the United Front Work Department.”

The China Daily clip reveals that Pompeo might as well have been calling Ducey out personally.

Read more at World Tribune

President Trump Signs Coronavirus Relief Bill Invoking 1974 Impoundment Control Act to Demand “Rescissions”

/in , , , , , /by


The President on Sunday invoked the 1974 Impoundment Control Act to demand “rescissions” be made to the spending measures.
Trump: I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill.
Trump negotiated:

  • $2,000 per person
  • Section 230 eliminated or substantially revised
  • A line by line removal of the pork from the bill

https://twitter.com/KelemenCari/status/1343371877872500737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1343371877872500737%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2020%2F12%2Fpresident-trump-signs-coronavirus-relief-bill-invoking-1974-impoundment-control-act-to-demand-rescissions.html%2F

Trump signs coronavirus relief bill after days of tension

By Tom Howell Jr. – The Washington Times – Sunday, December 27, 2020
President Trump signed the massive coronavirus relief and government spending bill Sunday, ending nearly a week of suspense that flustered governors and lawmakers of both parties.
Mr. Trump put pen to paper after a Christmas period marked by anger and confusion over his demands for bigger payments than what his Treasury secretary and GOP leaders agreed to in intense talks earlier this month.
“As president, I have told Congress that I want far less wasteful spending and more money going to the American people in the form of $2,000 checks per adult and $600 per child,” Mr. Trump said.
He also said he will send Congress a list of “rescissions,” or wasteful budget items that he wants removed, and that Senate Republicans will “start the process” that provides for $2,000 stimulus checks — a provision the House Democratic majority already agreed to.
He said his Senate allies will go a step further and consider repealing the liability protections that shield social media from lawsuits over their content and the voter fraud allegations that he’s pointed to as the reason for his election loss.

John Soloman’s take:

Trump averts shutdown, signs $2.3 trillion spending and COVID relief bill

Trump had refused to sign a Covid relief bill until Congress raised the amount of money paid to everyday Americans.
Updated: December 28, 2020:
President Trump on Sunday night signed a $2.3 trillion federal spending and COVID relief bill, averting a government shutdown and ensuring millions of Americans continue to get unemployment benefits.
Despite his misgivings about wasteful spending and low stimulus payments in the bill, Trump said he signed the legislation because “I have an obligation to protect the people of our country“ from further economic devastation. He said, however, “more money is coming” as Congress votes this week on larger checks.
The president on Sunday also invoked the 1974 Impoundment Control Act to demand “rescissions” be made to the spending measures. Under the Act, a president can seek congressional approval to rescind funds by sending a special message to Congress identifying the amount he proposes to cut, the reasons for it, and the economic impact.
“I will sign the Omnibus and Covid package with a strong message that makes clear to Congress that wasteful items need to be removed. I will send back to Congress a redlined version, item by item, accompanied by the formal rescission request to Congress insisting that those funds be removed from the bill,” Trump said.
The signing came after Trump tweeted, “Good news on Covid Relief Bill. Information to follow!”
The signing brought hope to millions of Americans who lost jobless benefits over the weekend as a federal shutdown loomed.
The standoff occurred after Trump refused before Christmas to sign the $2.3 trillion spending and COVID relief bill, demanding more money for everyday Americans.
Congress failed to address the president’s demands to increase the $600 stimulus checks to $2,000 per person.

RELATED TWEET:


EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

What Is Section 230 and Why Do Trump and His Allies Want to Repeal It?

/in , , , , , , /by


Section 230 simply says that only internet users are responsible for what they write, not the private companies whose websites host the commenters.

In 2020, many of us have become accustomed to terms and concepts we never thought we’d be discussing: “social distancing,” mask requirements, and Zoom parties all come to mind.
We can add Section 230 to that list, an obscure provision of the Communications and Decency Act (1996) that was previously unknown to most.
Section 230 is a frequent target of President Trump’s ire, and as such it can now frequently be found trending on Twitter, being debated in Congress, and featured in primetime media coverage. All in all, dozens of bills to repeal or modify Section 230 have been introduced in 2020.
TechDirt journalist Mike Masnick writes, “If you were in a coma for the past 12 months, just came out of it, and had to figure out what had happened in the last year or so solely based on new bills introduced in Congress, you would likely come to the conclusion that Section 230 was the world’s greatest priority and the biggest, most pressing issue in the entire freaking universe.”
But while it is a recurring topic of discussion, it seems the incessant chatter has only left Americans more confused. This explainer is here to break down the code and the debate swirling around it.

So what’s the truth about Section 230? What does it actually say and what are its implications? Fortunately, the original author of the bill, Senator Ron Wyden, is still around and on record when it comes to the current dispute.
“Republican Congressman Chris Cox and I wrote Section 230 in 1996 to give up-and-coming tech companies a sword and a shield, and to foster free speech and innovation online. Essentially, 230 says that users, not the website that hosts their content, are the ones responsible for what they post, whether on Facebook or in the comments section of a news article. That’s what I call the shield.”
“But it also gave companies a sword so that they can take down offensive content, lies and slime — the stuff that may be protected by the First Amendment but that most people do not want to experience online. And so they are free to take down white supremacist content or flag tweets that glorify violence (as Twitter did with President Trump’s recent tweet) without fear of being sued for bias or even of having their site shut down. Section 230 gives the executive branch no leeway to do either.”
It can seem complicated, but it’s actually fairly straightforward. Section 230 simply says that only internet users are responsible for what they write, not the private companies whose websites host the commenters. Secondly, it affirms what the First Amendment already implies—that private companies don’t have to host speech that violates their values.
It can seem complicated, but it’s actually fairly straightforward.
Section 230 was written early on in the internet age, long before social media companies even existed (although much of this debate has focused on those platforms). Within the bill, the authors explicitly say the law is “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services.”
And it has been successful. The government got out of the way and the internet expanded rapidly. Private companies invested millions to build their online enterprises, encouraged by provisions like Section 230 that secured their rights against unjust legal charges that would have otherwise put those investments in severe jeopardy.
Online companies want and need internet users to interact with their content and share feedback on their platforms. That goes for publishers (like Vox.com and us here at FEE.org), platforms (like Twitter and YouTube), and everything in between. But they shouldn’t be held liable because someone writes something untrue on their pages, nor should they have to host content that they find offensive.
Ronald Reagan once said,“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
Individuals should be held accountable when they break the law or violate the rights of others. But it would be morally wrong to hold society at large, or even parts of society like private businesses, responsible for the action of an autonomous individual. In fact, this course of action would let the party actually responsible for harm off the hook while punishing a third party who did nothing wrong.
Shoshana Weissmann, the head of Digital Media and Fellow at the R Street Institute, recently wrote a punchy (and hilarious) article illustrating this concept—tying Section 230’s protections to Jeffrey Toobin’s Zoom “reveal” earlier this year. For those who’ve forgotten, Toobin accidentally exposed himself on a work Zoom call. As Weissmann points out, without Section 230, Zoom itself would have been liable for his lewd content rather than Toobin being held responsible.


Thankfully, we have Section 230 which creates a just and sensible legal apparatus for the internet and conduct on it. Without this protection, it is highly unlikely that the internet would have taken off and grown to its current state, much less produced the social media websites, online news outlets, and other user-reviewed services (like Yelp) we all now enjoy.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313511340124917760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1313511340124917760%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ffee.org%2Farticles%2Fwhat-is-section-230-and-why-do-trump-and-his-allies-want-to-repeal-it%2F

Section 230 became a hot topic in the fall of 2019 when President Donald Trump drafted an executive order requiring the Federal Communications Commission to develop rules that would limit its protections. Ultimately, that order never went through, as even the mention of it was met with confusion and alarm by regulators, legal experts, and First Amendment advocates.
The storm died down until May of this year when Twitter found itself in Trump’s crosshairs after slapping one of his tweets with a violence warning. This feud reignited Trump’s fury and determination to do away with Section 230.
Since then, Trump and his allies have regularly called for the repeal of Section 230. Trump believes that social media companies are unfair to him and his agenda, and his response to that is to use the government to force the private companies to act in a way he deems appropriate. He also believes that doing away with Section 230 would block social media companies from “censoring” information on their websites.
There has, of course, been pushback against all this. Many conservatives and libertarians have pointed out that Trump and his supporters fundamentally misunderstand the legal code and its implications. Supporters of Section 230 say it upholds the right to free speech in the age of the internet, and that it protects the free market as well.


Meanwhile, others like Republican Senator Roger Wicker have called for modifications to the law that would leave the liability shield in place, but that would force companies to host content that may violate their values.
Social media companies, who have incurred the bulk of the derision in this debate, are left between a rock and a hard place. Democratic leaders want them to censor more and guard against “fake news,” while some Republicans want to take away their rights for any content moderation.
True defenders of free speech, limited government, and the free market are largely being drowned out by the tidal wave of politicians and their supporters pushing for big government responses to a societal issue they dislike.

While opponents of Section 230 think that its removal would force companies to host their content and not “censor” information the company does not like, it would, in fact, have the opposite effect. If companies were liable for content posted on their pages by third parties, they would instead have to censor vigorously.
While opponents of Section 230 think that its removal would force companies to host their content and not “censor” information the company does not like, it would, in fact, have the opposite effect. If companies were liable for content posted on their pages by third parties, they would instead have to censor vigorously.
We’ve already seen a preview of what this would look like with the passage of the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTRA). Signed into law in April of 2018, FOSTRA carved out an exception to Section 230 that essentially said websites would be held responsible for content promoting or facilitating sex trafficking or prostitution.
Internet companies reacted quickly, even those whose primary purpose had nothing to do with sex work. Craigslist removed its personals section altogether. Reddit and Google also took down parts of their websites. Notably, these actions were not taken because these sections of their websites promoted prostitution, but rather because policing them against the possibility that someone else might advertise illegal services was an impossible task.
It is almost inevitable that further eroding Section 230 would have similar impacts throughout the internet. Consider, for example, a company like Twitter. If it could potentially be sued for the millions of user posts on its platform, it would have to start censoring many more of them, or even running them through a pre-approval process. This would likely slow down the flow of information on these channels as the companies would be forced to sort through and approve content. Ultimately, these actions would result in all of us having less of a public square, fewer information streams, and a less rich internet experience.
Especially concerning is the impact these actions would have on smaller companies and start-ups, many of whom cannot afford losing liability protections. Ironically, those who seek to harm Facebook or Twitter by repealing this law would actually end up entrenching their power even more by putting their competitors out of business.
Take Parler for example. It is a growing, popular competitor of Twitter’s that many conservatives are flocking to. Should Section 230 be repealed, this new company would almost certainly be put out of business tomorrow as it does not yet have the revenue to withstand litigation. Twitter, on the other hand, would have the resources to survive and adapt.

“If Section 230 were to be repealed, or even watered down, this next generation of platform will likely be thwarted by liability threats. “Big tech” firms have the resources to comply with new mandates and regulations, so erecting this barrier to entry to nascent firms will artificially lock currently dominant firms in their lead positions.”

-An open letter to Congress from a coalition of conservative and libertarian think orgs, including Americans for Prosperity, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedomworks, and more

Some bills seek to modify Section 230 instead of repealing it. There are too many to name in one article, so we’ll focus on the worst and the most prominent: Senator Josh Hawley’s “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act.”
This legislation would remove liability protections for companies with more than 30 million US users, 300 million global users, or $500 million in annual revenue. The bill also says that these large companies can apply for immunity from the bill if they go through a process that allows the FTC to screen their protocols and attest that their algorithms and content removal policies do not discriminate on the basis of political views.
So Hawley wants to fight “censorship” with – wait for it – actual government censorship of private companies.
Real censorship almost always involves the government, because without this tool of force, it is unlikely information could be totally suppressed. While people like to call social media content moderation “censorship” it really isn’t, not in the true sense of the word. Those who have their posts removed from one platform can easily go post them elsewhere. But what Hawley wants to do, which is use the government to censor the protocols of private companies, actually does constitute censorship as it would force them to allow the government to dictate what speech they would (or would not) host on their websites.
The notion that it would ever be wise to give the government this kind of power is quite jarring to encounter in America. It’s easy to see how this system would quickly eviscerate our fundamental rights to free speech by allowing the government to determine what belongs in the public square of discourse.
And, it’s important to remember that Biden appointees will soon be running these departments. This is an important reminder that the government bureaucrats who decide what counts as “neutral” will not be picked by your team forever. It would be prudent to stop giving the government more power that will only one day be used against you when your “team” is no longer in charge.

What’s next? Will they call to nationalize these platforms? This approach is antithetical to the ideals of limited government, free markets, and free speech.

“This bill forces platforms to make an impossible choice: either host reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech, or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism,” said Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the Internet Association. “That shouldn’t be a tradeoff.”

While many seem to think that Section 230 makes a distinction between ideological publishers and neutral platforms, and that companies who act as publishers do not enjoy its protections, this isn’t true. Section 230 applies to all internet companies and makes no such distinction between publishers and platforms.
Section (c.) of Section 230 specifically addresses this point and speaks to the protection of companies who block and screen offensive material. It immediately states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. It goes on to say that when it comes to matters of civil liability, “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lews, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
Publishers can be sued for defamatory language online, just as they can be sued for it in print. So can Twitter or Facebook, if they issue a statement or a post. But that isn’t a relevant scenario to Section 230, which again, merely maintains websites are not liable for content you may choose to write on their pages.
Removing content they find offensive is well within their First Amendment rights, and within their Section 230 rights. It doesn’t change their status as a company or their protections under the law.
Many advocates for repealing Section 230 have hung their cases on the “publisher vs. platform” argument in an attempt to mislead their followers. But the good news is, Section 230 is relatively short. You can literally read it in less than five minutes for yourself and see that the publisher vs. platform discussion is a non-issue.
There are also those who claim that Section 230 is a special protection or an exemption for social media companies. This argument also fails to hold water.
One of the few, legitimate functions of government is to uphold the rights of individuals; when that is done businesses have a secure and just climate to operate within. That is exactly what Section 230 did. When the internet came about, it opened up an entirely new marketplace and one that needed such rights affirmed in order for people to invest in it.
Section 230 merely applied the same types of laws we see in the tangible world to the online marketplace. Would Burger King be liable if you came in and shouted obscenities at their customers? Should they be forced to host you on their premises and allow your attack on their clients to continue? Of course not. The same rules should apply to an internet company, and thanks to Section 230 they do.
Furthermore, without this provision to protect an online free market, the courts would likely be bogged down with frivolous lawsuits, which would cost taxpayers dearly. Even sorting through and throwing out such suits is an expensive and time-consuming process.

On this issue, those who believe in limited government and free markets need to put their principles over short-term political expediency. Individuals, whether acting alone or jointly through a business, have the right to free speech, meaning the government has no right to tell them what they can or cannot say. While we may disagree with their choices to remove some users or throttle access to certain content (and I do), it would be a violation of their fundamental rights to force them to host speech they disagree with.
This argument is akin to one that caught the attention of many conservatives years ago: The Christian baker, Jack Phillips, who famously refused to bake a custom cake for a same-sex wedding citing his free speech rights. Just as the baker had a First Amendment right to not endorse a message that violated his beliefs, so too do the owners of social media companies. If we dislike the ways in which they run their platforms, the proper solution is for us to create or fund their competitors—not use big government as a weapon to tread on them.
This is the beauty of the free market. We don’t need the federal government to get involved in this picture outside of creating a fair legal apparatus in which companies can flourish. With Section 230 they got this right, and consumers now enjoy a wide range of options online thanks to its provisions.
If users are unhappy with Twitter or Facebook, they can take their business elsewhere and vote with their feet. If enough users do that, Twitter and Facebook will willingly change their policies to attract users back, or they will cease to exist.
Some have noted that the network effect makes it difficult for social media competitors to attract new customers, referring to the fact that for some products users find more enjoyment in them when a large number of their peers partake in the experience. But MySpace used to have the network effect advantage, and it still lost out to upstart competitors. And the recent (and impressive) success of Parler shows that there is still room for competition in this picture.
As always, free people are far better equipped to solve this problem than the government.
COLUMN BY

Hannah Cox

Hannah Cox is a libertarian-conservative writer, commentator, and activist. She’s a Newsmax Insider and a Contributor to The Washington Examiner.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Miami mayor urges Wall Street firms to leave NYC for friendlier city

/in , , , , , , /by


Excellent idea, Mayor Suarez. America is going to see some significant population shifts in the years to come, since more American corporations will flee Democrat States plagued by high taxes.

Miami mayor urges Wall Street firms to leave NYC for friendlier city

City taxes, business environment key draws for big banks, mayor says.

By Fox News, December 26, 2020
Miami’s Republican mayor said Thursday he hopes to draw some of the big financial firms from Wall Street down to Biscayne Boulevard, as a relief from the high tax burdens and other restrictions of New York.

Mayor Francis X. Suarez told “Your World” he is already having success in talks with firms like Blackstone, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan.

New York State continues to be near or at the top of the list when it comes to taxation and other categories that businesses take heed of, while Florida does not impose a state income tax among other benefits.
Suarez said that one of the more recent developments that have made northeastern firms question their tenure in New York and the surrounding region is that of the change in federal SALT deduction.
The Trump tax bill capped the amount of local tax that residents of high-tax states can deduct from their federal return. While SALT used to have no limit, the plan maxed out the deduction at $10,000.
New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, previously accused Trump of “trying to kill New York City” with policies such as the SALT cap, further claiming it to be “retribution politics” against Democratic-run states, which tend to have a higher tax burden.
Suarez told “Your World” host Charles Payne he has already seen “an avalanche of people” moving into South Florida from Cuomo’s state, as well as California.
He also touted Miami’s standing as one of the safest large cities in America, remarking that its homicide rate is the lowest since 1954. For its part, New York had for some time been considered in similar straits, but the Big Apple had a spike in violence in recent months.
RELATED ARTICLES:
You Can Kill Covid With a Flick of a Light Switch, Study Shows
COVERUP OF THE CENTURY: Leaked Documents Expose Extent Of Communist China’s Coronavirus Lies/Disinfo/ Censorship
US to Label Products From Parts of Judea and Samaria as ‘Made in Israel’
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Smart Toilets,’ Afghan Book Clubs, and Lizard Treadmills: Rand Paul’s Report Exposes $55 Billion in Government Waste

/1 Comment/in , , , , , , /by


Everybody celebrates the holiday season in their own way. Each year, Senator Rand Paul invokes the spirit of the fictional grievance-airing holiday “Festivus” from Seinfeld to release an annual taxpayer waste report—and boy, is this one a doozy.
The libertarian-leaning Kentucky lawmaker’s report for 2020 finds an astounding $54.7 billion wasted by the federal government this year. (That’s not even an exhaustive figure for the federal government, nor does it account for the vast levels of waste by state and local governments.)
To put the nearly $55 billion wasted in context, Paul’s office explains that this is equivalent to wasting the taxes of more than 5.4 million Americans. It’s enough money to build a two-lane road that wraps around the entire Earth—18 times over. It’s enough money to buy every American a 40-inch flat-screen TV.
Yes, seriously.


Paul’s report cites far too many examples to list in one article, but even a cursory glance at some of its most prominent revelations will leave any honest taxpayer infuriated.
According to the senator’s report, the National Institutes of Health spent millions studying if people will eat bugs and millions more trying to invent a “smart toilet.” The federal agency also spent millions trying to reduce hookah smoking rates among Eastern Mediterranean youth and $31.5 million to fund an allegedly faked study linking e-cigarettes to heart attacks.
Yet perhaps the most bizarre examples of how politicians spend our taxpayer money come from how the government uses it overseas.
We spent $8.6 billion on anti-drug efforts in Afghanistan, the report finds. Hundreds of thousands went to art classes for Kenyans, Afghan and Pakistani book clubs, and funding for Sri Lankan think tanks. In a truly baffling example, tens of millions were spent to combat truancy… in the Philippines.
Oh, and of course, we spent taxpayer money to put lizards on treadmills and study the results.


The military wasted lots of taxpayer money too, Paul’s report reveals.
It allegedly lost $715 million worth of equipment that was intended for Syrians to use to fight ISIS. Meanwhile, $174 million went to lost drones in Afghanistan, and we spent $3.1 million on a police complex that now sits unused.
So what can be done to stop all this waste? It would simply require voters to hold Congress’s feet to the fire and force them to actually hold agencies accountable for how taxpayer money is spent.
“Congress has every tool it needs to fight and end government waste,” Paul said. “It’s just a matter of finding the willpower to use them.”
Unfortunately, fiscally responsible politicians like Paul are the exception, not the rule. As Nobel-prize-winning economist Milton Friedman famously explained, government spending is inherently prone to waste. Why?
You can spend your money on yourself, in which case you’ll be quite judicious with it. You can also spend your money on someone else, or someone else’s money on yourself. In either case you’ll still have a strong incentive to spend the money responsibly.
Yet Friedman identified a fourth scenario.
“If I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get,” the economist wrote. “And that’s government.”
So, there’s only one way to truly limit government waste of taxpayer dollars. We have to limit the scope of government itself.
RELATED ARTICLE: The Many Glaring Problems with the New COVID Stimulus Package
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: FL State Senator Joe Gruters’ bill would prohibit businesses from discriminating against a customers’ COVID vaccination status

/in , , , , , , /by


Florida’s State Senator Joe Gruters (R-District 23) has introduced legislation that would prohibit businesses from requiring customers to show proof of having been vaccinated against covid and/or from discriminating against would be customers who cannot and/or will not show such proof.
Watch the Cape Coral TV news blurb:

What you say? I do not support government intrusion into how a private business is operated.

  1. This bill would stop, in its tracks, attempts by Government to require the general citizenry to show proof of being vaccinated during the course of their normal day-to-day activities.
  2. This bill would stop, in its tracks, attempts by Government to, “under the color of law”, force businesses to become the “vaccination police”

That said, I would rather see legislation that prevents the State of Florida from imposing ANY sort of “must show proof” requirements and let businesses make their own decisions on the matter.
Then, again, when I walk into a bank lobby and some minion tells me I must wear a mask and then, using their bare hands (God only knows where their hands have been), from an open box (God only knows where it has been), hands me an unsealed mask (God only knows who has handled them) and demands that I put it on my face?
Let’s just say that we need something along the lines of Gruters’ bill and we need it damn soon.
Read the Bill here:https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/364
©Tad MacKie. All rights reserved.

GOP Blocks $2,000 Stimulus Payments, House To Hold Roll Call Vote On Proposal Monday

/in , , , , , /by


“Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It was not their fault.”  – President Donald J. Trump

House Republicans blocked legislation Thursday that would have sent $2,000 in direct payments to Americans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
House Democratic and Republican leaders met early Thursday morning in a pro forma session and held a unanimous consent vote on the direct payments proposal, according to CNBC. Republican leadership voted the measure down, which required all lawmakers present to unanimously vote in favor for it to pass.
“Today, on Christmas Eve morning, House Republicans cruelly deprived the American people of the $2,000 that the President agreed to support,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. “If the President is serious about the $2,000 direct payments, he must call on House Republicans to end their obstruction.”


Pelosi said during a press conference that the House would hold a recorded roll call vote on the measure Monday, Fox News correspondent Chad Pergram reported. If succesful, the measure would alter the the omnibus bill Congress passed Monday night by changing stimulus checks sent to Americans from $600 to $2,000.
Virginia Republican Rep. Rob Wittman attempted to get the House to vote on reconsidering the much-criticized foreign aid included in the omnibus bill, according to CNBC. Democrats blocked that proposal.
“Speaker Pelosi tried to use the American people as leverage to make coronavirus relief contingent on government funding – which includes billions of foreign aid at a time when there are urgent needs at home,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a statement Wednesday night.
The coronavirus stimulus relief bill hangs in the balance after President Donald Trump announced Tuesday he wouldn’t sign the bill Congress passed. Trump criticized both the $600 direct payment, saying they were too small, and the foreign aid, saying it was wasteful.
“Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It was not their fault,” Trump said.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Trump Didn’t Make The Pardon A Political Tool, It Always Has Been
Trump Says He Won’t Sign Coronavirus Stimulus Into Law Without Major Changes On Direct Payments And ‘Wasteful Items’
Feds Say Latest US Government Hack ‘Poses A Grave Risk’ To National Security. How Might They Respond?
Trump Already Has A Successful Model For ‘MAGA TV’ — And It Might Give Him A Run For His Money
‘The High Priest Of The COVID Cult’: Tucker Carlson Pans DC Mayor’s ‘Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Day’ Declaration
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Fifty-Five Years of Denial about Black Lives

/in , , , , , /by

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was right in 1965 about the black underclass but continues to be ignored or maligned.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was “woke” about the injustices suffered by African Americans before most of today’s “wokes” were born. He was also right about the root cause of the permanency of the black underclass.

Strangely, however, instead of being remembered for his insights and caring, Moynihan has been maligned by the American intelligentsia through the years and is largely unknown by the new generation of social-justice activists and by the Black Lives Matter movement.

In 1965, Moynihan was a sociologist for the U.S. Department of Labor. He would later become a U.S. Senator. He published a scholarly paper in March of that year for the DOL, a report that contained an N-word in its title, which turns off prospective readers but was the official government terminology of the day: “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action”

Moynihan should be a hero to today’s wokes. With sensitivity, compassion and honesty, he explained that slavery in the U.S. had been especially vile, because, unlike slavery in Brazil and elsewhere, slaves were seen by slaveowners as chattel and not as humans, a belief that resulted in male and female slaves not being allowed to marry, in slaves being separated from their families and sold, and in the establishment of a matriarchal subculture.

Later, during Jim Crow, black men who attempted to protect their families were humiliated or worse. And later still, welfare made black men unnecessary in providing for their families. These developments further entrenched the matriarchal culture and led black men to find counterproductive and self-defeating ways of expressing their masculinity.

Of course, as Moynihan went on to explain, blacks also faced poverty, discrimination, bad schools, and biased law enforcement. So did certain immigrant groups, but not to the same extent as blacks. With the advent of civil rights and voting rights, many blacks did overcome these barriers and rise to the middle-class, but to a lesser degree than disadvantaged immigrants.

Immigrants and poor whites in general had an advantage that blacks didn’t have: a much higher incidence of two-parent families. To that point, Moynihan wrote this:

As a direct result of this high rate of divorce, separation, and desertion, a very large percent of Negro families are headed by females. While the percentage of such families among whites has been dropping since 1940, it has been rising among Negroes.

The percent of nonwhite [black] families headed by a female is more than double the percent for whites. Fatherless nonwhite families increased by a sixth between 1950 and 1960, but held constant for white families.

It has been estimated that only a minority of Negro children reach the age of 18 having lived all their lives with both of their parents.

On a related note, Moynihan provided the following statistics on the welfare program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children:

The AFDC program, deriving from the long-established Mothers’ Aid programs, was established in 1935 principally to care for widows and orphans, although the legislation covered all children in homes deprived of parental support because one or both of their parents are absent or incapacitated.

In the beginning, the number of AFDC families in which the father was absent because of desertion was less than a third of the total. Today it is two thirds. HEW estimates “that between two thirds and three fourths of the 50 percent increase from 1948 to 1955 in the number of absent father families receiving ADC may be explained by an increase in broken homes in the population.”

A 1960 study of Aid to Dependent Children in Cook County, Ill. stated:

“The ‘typical’ ADC mother in Cook County was married and had children by her husband, who deserted; his whereabouts are unknown, and he does not contribute to the support of his children. She is not free to remarry and has had an illegitimate child since her husband left. (Almost 90 percent of the ADC families are Negro.)”

These excerpts are but a tiny fraction of the sobering statistics in the Moynihan report.

The key message of the report was that the trend of broken black families was going in the wrong direction and would result in a permanent underclass and increased social pathologies, which would not be overcome by civil rights (or by diversity and inclusion today). Indeed, since the report, the percent of one-parent black families has more than doubled, with a corresponding rise in pathologies, especially and most horrendously, the shootings of teens by other teens. This mirrors what Moynihan predicted, as follows:

The family structure of lower-class Negroes is highly unstable, and in many urban centers is approaching complete breakdown.

There is considerable evidence that the Negro community is in fact dividing between a stable middle class group that is steadily growing stronger and more successful, and an increasingly disorganized and disadvantaged lower class group. There are indications, for example, that the middle class Negro family puts a higher premium on family stability and the conserving of family resources than does the white middle class family.

What Moynihan didn’t foresee was that the percent of one-parent white families would also more than double over the upcoming decades, due to changing mores, women entering the workforce, and the feminist movement – a trend that also has resulted in entrenched social pathologies.

Today, tellingly, certain Asian races in America have the highest percent of traditional families and the highest income and educational achievement.

Many middle- and working-class communities have become Potemkin villages, whether white or black. From the outside they look like communities of yesteryear, with nice ranch homes, lawns, and tree-lined streets. But the facades hide a divorce rate of 50%, substance abuse, and despondent, angry children – and in some cities, gangs of teens who sell drugs and prey on their neighbors, which in turn results in a larger police presence and the increased likelihood of misunderstandings or worse between cops and citizens.

The suburb of Ferguson outside of my hometown of St. Louis is a case in point. From the outside, the homes are nicer than the homes in my boyhood working-class neighborhood, but the worst thing my friends and I did as kids in the old hood was soap windows or ring doorbells and run. We didn’t steal from a neighborhood store, or walk the streets in the middle of the night, or fear the cops, who were part of the community and known by name.

Anyway, given that Moynihan has been proven prophetic, why is his report maligned or ignored today? Three reasons:

First, the report used the N-word, which at best is now seen as anachronistic, and at worst, is a trigger for accusations of racism or calls for cancelling.

Second, overly-sensitive feminists misinterpret Moynihan as having advocated for a patriarchal society, because of his concern over fathers being displaced from family life.

Third, his reference to illegitimacy is incorrectly seen as passing moral judgment, when in fact, he did no such thing but simply used statistics that were available at the time and were rough proxies for fatherless families. He knew that unmarried parents were not necessarily irresponsible parents or single parents.

I’ll close on a personal note and retell an anecdote that I’ve written about elsewhere.

At about the same time as the Moynihan report, I was a teen working as the only white on an otherwise all-black clubhouse staff at an exclusive St. Louis country club, where Italians and Jews weren’t welcome as members. St. Louis was the city known for the infamous Dredd Scott case, the infamous Pruitt-Igoe public housing complex, racial tensions and riots, and white flight to the suburbs. Now the city has just a fraction of its former population and one of the highest crime rates in the nation.

Waiters at the clubhouse restaurant were former waiters on Pullman train cars and were solidly in the middle-class. They were the epitome of good manners, personal grooming, and classy dress The same for clubhouse manager Bill Williams, who wore tailored suits and cufflinks, which were two articles of attire that my dad didn’t own.

For extra money on my off-hours, I would wash and wax their big Buicks and Pontiacs, which, unlike our family car, didn’t have rusted-out floorboards, through which the pavement could be seen flying by. Neighbors marveled at the cars and marveled even more when Bill Williams came for a visit.

At the lower end of the class spectrum were the cooks, dishwasher and janitors. A former prize fighter, the dishwasher had a long scar on his face and a violent temper, especially when drunk.

One of my jobs was cleaning the employee restroom in the basement of the clubhouse. After I had finished the chore one morning, the dishwasher walked into the restroom, peed on the floor, and said, “Clean it up whitey.” A young and muscular coworker, who happened to walk by at that moment, threw the dishwasher against the wall and said, “You clean it up, you black motherf _ _ _ _r.” Not wanting trouble, I said, “That’s okay. I’ll get it.”

Despite these class and behavioral differences, and despite the discrimination my coworkers faced in St. Louis, almost all of them were married and took pride in being good family men. They would invite me to their family picnics in Forest Park, where they would cook the best barbecued ribs in the world. Other than skin color and cuisine, the picnics were just like the picnics of Italian families.

Sadly, as Moynihan had warned, much of this family foundation subsequently crumbled, not only for many blacks but also for many whites. Sadder still, wokes don’t know this history and are unaware of the dreadful socioeconomic consequences of fatherless families.

The Moynihan report should be required reading in colleges, but that’s a pipe dream.

Payment Processers Escalate War on Digital Army

/2 Comments/in , , , /by


RedPill78, a “citizen journalist” operating in Washington DC, was banned from YouTube back in October. That was part of the coordinated assault by big tech on the so-called QAnon journalists. But QAnon is an inexact term, used by the establishment to push dissident journalists into a box: “Conspiracy theorists (as if conspiracies don’t exist) who think the Democratic party has been taken over by satanic, baby-eating pedophiles.”
This is a gross mischaracterization, designed to discourage anyone from paying attention to the work of the Q collective.
What RedPill78, and tens of thousands of citizen journalists like him are part of is better described as a digital army. They are a threat to the establishment because they are doing investigative work that controlled mainstream journalists in America have neither the time nor the permission to conduct.
For now, RedPill78 has not been silenced, because he has migrated to Rumble, DLive, Pilled, Odysee, and others. Alternative, constantly proliferating video platforms working on distributed servers, theoretically, can continue to broadcast online unless the whole internet is shut down. To take them down, that is, you might have to take down everything.
There are many ways the empire can strike back, however, and kicking dissidents off of the major video platforms is only one of them.
On December 17, in the middle of a live show, RedPill78 learned that PayPal had terminated his account. Without providing examples of how his content had transgressed, and providing only innocuous, vague explanation, PayPal took away RedPill78’s ability to accept donations or subscription payments.
This represents a major escalation in the ongoing assault on free speech, and like video deplatforming, it is being rolled out slowly but systematically. What RedPill78 has experienced is just the beginning. Laura Loomer has been banned from riding Uber, solely because of her political opinions. Lana Lokteff has been banned from having any bank accounts, again solely because of her political opinions.
None of these victims of financial deplatforming have violated First Amendment principles. “Hate speech” and “misinformation,” besides being highly subjective concepts, are protected forms of speech. If you listen to RedPill78’s body of work, there is nothing to justify censorship, much less financial aggression.
RedPill78 is a threat because he is investigating fraud and corruption, and connecting the dots. Listen to his findings. See for yourself how close he and others are getting to truths, which if spread far and wide, could be very inconvenient for America’s ruling class.
The Federal Office of Comptroller of the Currency is considering a new rule that would bar banks from denying service for non-financial reasons, such as a customer’s political views. This could be implemented without approval of the U.S. Congress, but could be rescinded if Biden takes over the executive branch.
The Leftist dominated establishment should be careful what it wishes for. The instruments of repression they are perfecting with their big tech allies could be used against them, if enough Americans take the Red Pill.
EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 Project column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

How $10 Million for Gender Programs in Pakistan Got Tied to a COVID Relief Bill

/1 Comment/in , , , , /by


Hours before lawmakers voted on a multi-trillion dollar government funding package that included a $900 billion COVID-19 relief bill, congressional aides were spotted wheeling in the legislation.
It ran 5,593 pages.
“You’d have to read 560 pages an hour to finish it before midnight,” observed NBC News correspondent Garrett Haake.


Lawmakers did not wait until midnight to pass the legislation, however.
“The Senate passed the massive year-end legislation combining $900 billion in pandemic relief with $1.4 trillion to fund federal agencies through fiscal 2021,” Bloomberg reported. “The House passed the legislation earlier Monday night. The total bill is worth more than $2.3 trillion, including support for small businesses impacted by the pandemic, $600 payments for most individuals, supplemental unemployment insurance, regular funding for federal agencies and a bevy of tax breaks for companies.”
So how did lawmakers read 560 pages an hour before voting on the bill? The answer is simple: they didn’t. In fact, there was a great deal of confusion—in both media and Congress—on what precisely lawmakers were voting on. (More on that later.)
Naturally, perhaps, there was some bipartisan anger over the process.
“Congress is expected to vote on the second largest bill in US history today,” tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), “as of about 1pm, members don’t even have the legislative text of it yet.”
Despite her reservations, Ocasio-Cortez voted in favor of the bill. Others held out, however.
“No member can honestly say they know exactly what they voted for this evening,” said Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), who voted against the legislation. “That is reason alone to vote no.”


Gosar was right. FEE’s covered at length on Monday many of the provisions contained in the COVID-19 relief bill, highlighting its many glaring problems. But because of its massive length, we still don’t know everything in the package—which is several bills tied into one.
As Yahoo Finance reports, some of the lesser-known provisions “have raised some eyebrows.”
“Among them are a pair of assistance programs in Pakistan, whereby $15 million will be put toward “democracy programs” and $10 million will be distributed to ‘gender programs,’” reports Fox News correspondent Brittany De Lea.
You read that correctly. But technically this provision—and other defense measures such as $73 million in spending for Israel’s Iron Dome 9 defense system —is not part of the COVID relief package. It’s part of the defense bill contained in the $1.4 trillion omnibus that was bound up with the COVID relief bill.
So while the Pakistani gender programs were not technically included in the COVID relief bill, the end result is much the same. US senators could not vote for COVID relief without voting for gender programs in Pakistan, $35 million for abstinence programs, and tax changes for owners of race horses. (The process in the House was a bit more complicated.)


This is a slap in the face to Americans. During a year in which tens of millions of Americans were forced out of work and hundreds of thousands of businesses were destroyed, lawmakers could not even offer a clean relief bill.
At the risk of stating the obvious, many believe a relief bill passed during a deadly pandemic should focus on relief for individuals and businesses adversely impacted by the pandemic.
So naturally, many on Twitter did not react positively to the revelation that the COVID relief bill and the omnibus were, in a sense, mixed together.


People are right to see that tying COVID relief to defense provisions is, well, stupid. But there’s a phenomenon that helps explain why this happens. It’s called logrolling.
Logrolling is essentially the trading of favors among legislators for mutual benefit. Bills often get passed by winning the support of lawmakers by including provisions that benefit their special interests, but which may not align with any public good. As a result, successful legislation tends to be chock full of special-interest spending.
This trap is highlighted by “public choice” economics, which assumes that politicians vote to forward their own interests just like everyone else. In this case, however, they impose costs on the country in exchange for a big benefit to a special interest group who supports them.
If you’re wondering how a vote for COVID relief for Americans becomes tied to $10 million for gender programs in Pakistan and hundreds of millions of dollars in defense for another country, look to the incentives lurking within government institutions.
COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.
RELATED TWEET:


EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump Calls Massive Spending Bill a ‘Disgrace,’ Says He Won’t Sign It

/1 Comment/in , , , , , /by


For those of you who were shocked, dismayed, stunned, depressed yesterday when you began hearing about what was in a bill passed by both Houses of Congress that was supposedly a COVID relief package, you got some solace later in the evening when President Trump went before the American people to say he would not sign the bill in its present form.
He stopped short of using the word “veto,” but said he won’t sign this monstrosity.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1341537886315950080?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1341537886315950080%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ffraudscrookscriminals.com%2F2020%2F12%2F23%2Ftrump-calls-massive-spending-bill-a-disgrace-says-he-wont-sign-it%2F
By the way, only six brave Republican Senators voted against the 5,000 plus page bill that NO one has read:
Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Rick Scott, R-Fla., Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.***
In the House it was 359 for and 53 against, see here.
Watch our President’s four minute display of leadership above (I see much of the media is calling it a rant).   He asks why we are sending billions abroad when Americans are hurting through no fault of their own.
Here is just one of dozens of news stories on the President’s big surprise to our disgusting House and Senate.
From the BBC:

Trump urges Congress to amend ‘wasteful’ coronavirus aid bill

In a video message posted on Twitter, he said the package “really is a disgrace”, full of “wasteful” items.
“It’s called the Covid relief bill, but it has almost nothing to do with Covid,” he said.

See Rush Limbaugh’s extensive commentary on the bill from yesterday afternoon. He laments that the rats are back at work as they assume the Trump era is over. https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/12/22/nothing-changes-in-washington-the-covid-relief-bill-should-be-vetoed/

The $900bn bill includes one-off $600 payments to most Americans, but Mr Trump said the figure should be $2,000.
His statement stunned Capitol Hill.
Republicans and Democrats have been negotiating a coronavirus stimulus rescue package since July and Mr Trump – who has largely stayed out of the talks – had been expected to sign the legislation into law following its passage through Congress on Monday night.
[….]
However, Mr Trump has not specifically said he would veto the bill. Even if he does, US media say there could be enough votes from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to override his veto.
[….]
In Tuesday night’s message from the White House, Mr Trump baulked at spending in the bill on other countries, arguing that this money should go to struggling Americans.
He said: “This bill contains $85.5m for assistance to Cambodia, $134m to Burma, $1.3bn for Egypt and the Egyptian military, which will go out and buy almost exclusively Russian military equipment, $25m for democracy and gender programmes in Pakistan, $505m to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.”
The president questioned why the Kennedy Center, a performing arts complex in Washington DC, was set to receive $40m when it is not open, and more than $1bn has been allocated to museums and galleries in the capital. [Which are also  mostly not open!—ed]

The President has nothing to lose now if he vetoes the monster that will put the US in even greater debt (to China?) for generations to come.  It will reaffirm his strong leadership that will be needed for the years ahead.
Yeah, they can override his veto, but then we will all know who puts Americans First and who puts us last. After all, the midterm elections are not far off.
*** These six should join Senator-elect Tuberville (and many Members of the House) in opposing a Biden/Harris presidency on January 6th.  What have they got to lose?
RELATED TWEET:


EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Many Glaring Problems with the New COVID Stimulus Package

/in , , , , , /by


After months of backroom negotiations and lobbying, leaders in Congress have finally reached an agreement on a second COVID-19 relief bill. The $900 billion package will likely pass this week.
Here’s a brief overview of what’s in the behemoth package—and a breakdown of the many glaring problems with it.

  • $600 “stimulus” checks for American adults who earned less than $75,000 in 2019 with additional $600 per household for each child
  • A federal $300/week add-on to existing state-level unemployment benefits and a renewal of provisions that expanded unemployment to new groups such as gig economy workers
  • $325 billion in grants and loans for businesses, largely funneled through the Paycheck Protection Program established in the first stimulus effort

The package notably does not include a large, general bailout for state and local governments, a Democratic priority, or a COVID-19 liability shield for businesses, a GOP priority.
The below graphic by the Wall Street Journal neatly visualizes where most of this nearly $1 trillion in additional taxpayer money is (ostensibly) going to go.
What I’ve outlined above gives you a good idea of what’s in the package. But to be clear, this is nowhere near an exhaustive list of what’s in the bill. The final legislation is likely to be hundreds if not thousands of pages long.

This brings us to the first glaring problem with this new relief effort. As Rep. Justin Amash has publicly lamented, it wasn’t properly debated or amended by Congress—it was negotiated in backroom meetings by the leadership from both party establishments. Why does this matter? Remember that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tried to slip $350 million for the 50 richest ZIP codes in America into an earlier version of a second stimulus bill, mostly for rich liberal cities. We cannot trust politicians to dole out nearly $1 trillion in the dark.
Unfortunately, many members of Congress will vote on the package without having actually read it in its entirety.


Suffice it to say this is not a responsible or transparent way to spend nearly a trillion taxpayer dollars. Of course, that’s nothing new.

The first COVID-19 stimulus bill, the $2 trillion+ CARES Act, was corrupted by waste, fraud, and abuse. The federal government sent more than a million stimulus checks to dead people and many more to random European citizens. The expanded unemployment system it created lost more to fraud alone than the entire system paid out in 2019. And the Paycheck Protection Program was “swamped with potential fraud” as tens of thousands of ineligible companies received money and thousands more were overpaid.
None of these problems have been meaningfully addressed by Congress. So this latest stimulus effort just pours hundreds of billions of taxpayer money into fraud-rife programs without addressing the problem.
The third but hardly final glaring problem with this additional “stimulus” effort is the highly dubious effectiveness of its key initiatives.

The way the key relief efforts are structured makes it highly unlikely they will be very effective.
Consider the “stimulus” checks, for example. Congress plans to send $600 to each American adult who earns less than $75,000. However, according to the Wall Street Journal, legislators are using 2019 data to determine income eligibility. That means they’re using pre-pandemic income measures to determine who is eligible and who is not.
So, millions of people who lost their jobs or livelihood due to COVID-19 lockdowns will not receive checks because they did well back in 2019. Meanwhile, many millions of people who haven’t had their incomes disrupted and can comfortably work from home will receive taxpayer-funded “relief” checks.


That’s right: The aid is not targeted at all to actually go to those who need it. But the checks will still stimulate the economy by boosting spending, right?
Well… not really.
The Keynesian notion that consumer spending drives the economy is false.
To use a famous example, this thinking suggests that if a child breaks a store window, this “stimulates” the economy because money must be spent to hire a repairman, who then in turn will go spend that money elsewhere. This is a fallacy, because the money to pay the repairman would instead have been used to purchase something else that actually added value for the shop owner.
In reality, it is investment, not spending, that plays the most central role in economic growth. And investment comes out of savings, because banks loan out deposited money to investors. By definition, arbitrarily increasing spending reduces savings and reduces the pool of money available for investment.
Regardless, it is COVID-19, government lockdowns, and other restrictions that have put a stranglehold on the economy. Putting another $600 in some peoples’ pockets doesn’t change this underlying reality.
“Government checks are only valuable to the extent that there is enough actual ‘stuff’ (goods and services) available for those dollars to buy,” FEE’s Dan Sanchez and Jon Miltimore previously explained. “The more you lock down production, the more our stock of ‘stuff’ will shrink, and the more our living standards will worsen. No amount of zeros added to those government checks can change that.”
So it’s really unclear what good the checks will accomplish, either as a matter of “stimulus” or relief. Other than spending billions of taxpayer dollars and worsening the skyrocketing national debt, that is.

Now onto the federally augmented unemployment benefits. This does actually target money to those in need, at least in large part. However, it does so by explicitly tying that money to unemployment, disincentivizing employment. The original $600 federal supplement meant that 70% of the unemployed could earn more by staying on welfare than by returning to work.
The reduction of the federal benefit to a $300 additional supplement (on top of existing state-level payouts) mitigates, but does not eliminate, this harm. A sizable, if yet undetermined, number of people will still be able to receive benefits that fully or almost fully equal their previous earnings. (Federal minimum wage earners, for example).

Even many Republicans and conservatives have at least touted the bill’s replenishment of the Paycheck Protection Program with several hundred billion more dollars (ostensibly) in relief earmarked for small businesses. However, beyond PPP’s serious fraud problems, its efficacy is seriously in doubt.
The top 1 percent of benefiting businesses received nearly one quarter of the program’s total money, according to the New York Times. The program’s payouts included many suspicious allocations of funds to giant corporations and even politicians’ own business interests. For example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s business received a PPP grant 7 times greater than the grant received by other similar-sized companies.
The end result was a dysfunction program.
MIT economist David Autor studied the Paycheck Protection Program and concluded that “a lot of [the] cash went to businesses that would have otherwise maintained relatively similar employment levels.” He found that it cost $224,000 in taxpayer expenditure per job preserved, only preserving roughly 2.3 million jobs.
The supposed saving grace of this new stimulus bill is refreshing the PPP initiative with hundreds of billions of dollars in new funding. But the evidence suggests that doing so is more of a political win for politicians than a meaningful victory for taxpayers and struggling small businesses.

The government cannot create wealth out of thin air.
“The truth is that the government cannot give if it does not take from somebody,” Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises once explained. “It is not in the power of the government to make everybody more prosperous.”
So we must keep in mind that whatever benefits do come from this stimulus effort will mean either higher taxes or skyrocketing debt that future generations will have to pay off.

Many voters might understandably be glad that a gridlocked Congress finally “got something done.” Yet the countless glaring problems plaguing this massively expensive effort should temper that optimism. It all offers yet another reminder that when we rely on Big Government solutions, incompetence, inefficiency, and waste are all baked into the cake.
COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Opinion Editor at the Foundation for Economic Education.
RELATED ARTICLES:
$900 Billion Stimulus Bill Packed Full of Pork
Giant New Spending and COVID-19 Relief Bill Also Creates 2 New Museums and a Library, References Dalai Lama Controversy
Echoes of the Great Recession in Commercial Real Estate
Part I: Poverty Is a Problem, not Inequality
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Let us join together in the song ‘Hotel California’

/in , , , , /by


Released in 1976 by The Eagles, “Hotel California” sold 42 million copies worldwide. Downtown Los Angeles typifies what cities in California look like today. After decades of Democrat rule, a third of the state’s residents live in poverty.
When I was a student at Georgia Tech in the mid-1960s, Atlanta was a safe and vibrant city.
Now, after six decades of welfare programs that kill the human spirit and a half-century of the anything-goes ‘sex, drugs and rock & roll’ progressive culture that took America by storm in 1968, Atlanta has changed in dramatically troubling ways.
Like California’s cities, Atlanta has homeless people defecating on public streets and is marked by large pockets of urban decay, where our society’s most vulnerable people endure squalid living conditions in neighborhoods overrun with drugs, crime, poverty and despair. Like other big cities in America, Atlanta has been run exclusively by Democrats since the 1960s.
Finally, in wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah, let us join together in song once more, this time a rendition about what the party of government dependency has done to one of the most beautiful states in America.
Please join me now in singing California Here I Come.

STAY INFORMED

Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.

POWERED BY

DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.