Make no mistake. We are at war.
Updates as events warrant. I am sure this has something to do with the capture of Salah Abdeslam.
Update: ISIS has claimed credit.
Over the weekend, Obama became the first President to visit Cuba in almost nine decades. It’s part of the slow thawing of relations between the two countries.
Naturally, there is a lot of opposition. And it’s not an opposition anyone who isn’t Cuban can really understand. The Cuban community has first and second hand memories of Castro murdering and imprisoning their families. They’ve watched as he has turned what was once a functional, if corrupt island into a nightmare prison state. They see celebrities going to Cuba, getting the guided tour and pronouncing everything wonderful and it drives them crazy. They see a media that fawns over Castro and ignores his brutal oppressive regime.
But I was struck by this quote, courtesy of the Coyote Blog:
I meant to post this a while back, but Jeff Flake totally gets it on Cuba, and I appreciate his leadership among the Republicans on this. I absolutely loved this quote:
Flake has long said that Americans should be free to see for themselves the stunted fruit of socialist policy. He tells the story of meeting with Lech Walesa, the great activist who challenged Soviet domination of Poland. “I have no idea,” Walesa complained, “why you guys have a museum of socialism 90 miles from your shore and you won’t let anybody visit it.”
After three generations, I think one can safely call a policy like our embargo “failed” and try something else.
Robert Heinlein once said the same thing about the Soviet Union. After touring it in 1961, he said that we should send a million Americans to tour the Soviet Union. The cost and the influx of hard currency to the USSR would be worth it if a million Americans got a real glimpse of the depraved impoverished police state that Khrushchev had promised us.
Right now, socialism is in vogue. We have an open socialist running for the Democratic nomination. Socialist ideas are portrayed as cute and idealistic. Let’s send a bunch of Americans to see what a real socialist paradise looks like. Let them see 14-year-old girls turning to prostitution to feed their families. Let them see the “free” hospitals that are open air infection wards. Let them smoke terrible Cuban cigars and inhale the failure of socialism into their lungs. Whatever benefits it gives to Castro’s regime will be worth it just to have a generation of Americans see where the road to socialism ends.
Now that it looks like we’re headed for a … ugh … Trump/Clinton showdown, expect to see more articles like this:
Back in 2013, I argued that the U.S. has been building “all the infrastructure a tyrant would need, courtesy of Bush and Obama,” adding, “More and more, we’re counting on having angels in office and making ourselves vulnerable to devils.” With Trump and Hillary Clinton leading in the primaries, let’s revisit some particulars:
Bush and Obama have built infrastructure any devil would lust after. Behold the items on an aspiring tyrant’s checklist that they’ve provided their successors:
A precedent that allows the president to kill citizens in secret without prior judicial or legislative review
The power to detain prisoners indefinitely without charges or trial
Ongoing warrantless surveillance on millions of Americans accused of no wrongdoing, converted into a permanent database so that data of innocents spied upon in 2007 can be accessed in 2027
Using ethnic profiling to choose the targets of secret spying, as the NYPD did with John Brennan’s blessing
Normalizing situations in which the law itself is secret — and whatever mischief is hiding in those secret interpretations
The permissibility of droning to death people whose identities are not even known to those doing the killing
The ability to collect DNA swabs of people who have been arrested even if they haven’t been convicted of anything
A torture program that could be restarted with an executive order
Even if you think Bush and Obama exercised those extraordinary powers responsibly, what makes you think every president would? How can anyone fail to see the huge potential for abuses?
Before moving into a new house, parents of small children engage in child-proofing. Before leaving the White House, Obama should engage in tyrant-proofing. For eight years, he has evinced a high opinion of his own ability to exercise power morally, even in situations where Senator Obama thought that the president should be restrained. At this point, better to flatter his ego than to resist it. You’ll be gone soon, Mr. President, and for all our disagreements, I think your successor is highly likely to be less trustworthy and more corruptible than you were.
Insofar as you can, limit his or her ability to violate liberties or hide atrocities before you go. It may be the most significant step you can take to safeguard your legacy.
Conor, who like many libertarians, has been sounding alarms on these issue for the last decade, also calls on Congress to reclaim its power while it still can.
Lee warned about it when Bush was assuming Patriot Act, surveillance and torture powers. I warned about it when Obama assumed mass surveillance powers and started doing everything by executive order. The mantra was always the same whether you trusted Bush or trusted Obama or trusted both: it wasn’t about them; it was about the next President and the next.
And now we have a next President, either Clinton or Trump. And the public doesn’t trust either of them. Nor should they. Both have shown a disregard for Constitutional restraint and the Rule of Law. Both have shown that they will use the power of the office to engage in petty personal vendettas. Both of them could be imagined being overruled by the Supreme Court and saying, as Andrew Jackson once did, “John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
Yet rather than reign in this unprecedented power, our leaders seem to be expanding it. To wit:
A while back, we noted a report showing that the “sneak-and-peek” provision of the Patriot Act that was alleged to be used only in national security and terrorism investigations has overwhelmingly been used in narcotics cases. Now the New York Times reports that National Security Agency data will be shared with other intelligence agencies like the FBI without first applying any screens for privacy.
This basically formalizes what was already happening under the radar. We’ve known for a couple of years now that the Drug Enforcement Administration and the IRS were getting information from the NSA. Because that information was obtained without a warrant, the agencies were instructed to engage in “parallel construction” when explaining to courts and defense attorneys how the information had been obtained. If you think parallel construction just sounds like a bureaucratically sterilized way of saying big stinking lie, well, you wouldn’t be alone. And it certainly isn’t the only time that that national security apparatus has let law enforcement agencies benefit from policies that are supposed to be reserved for terrorism investigations in order to get around the Fourth Amendment, then instructed those law enforcement agencies to misdirect, fudge and outright lie about how they obtained incriminating information — see the Stingray debacle. This isn’t just a few rogue agents. The lying has been a matter of policy. We’re now learning that the feds had these agreements with police agencies all over the country, affecting thousands of cases.
This shouldn’t be a partisan issue: do you want Clinton or Trump to have these powers? But of course, it is a partisan issue. Congressional Democrats don’t want to reign in the power of the White House because they’re just fine with Clinton wielding that power. Republicans might be a little more principled, given their fear of Trump, but I suspect they wouldn’t mind too much if he had such power.
One way or another, we appear to be on the brink of realizing what all those civil libertarians have been complaining about for years. And the country may never be the same.
Obama has announced his SCOTUS nominee: Merrick Garland.
I think the GOP would be wise to consider the nomination. They don’t have to accept it. They are well within their prerogative to reject it. But I think it should be considered.
For me, I would not support Merrick. He’s yet another product of the Harvard-Yale axis. Yet another nominee who has no experience in criminal defense (he’s been a career prosecutor). He’s yet another nominee who defers to the government and to law enforcement rather than defend our civil liberties. He also opposed Heller.
I won’t form a final opinion just yet. But my initial response is negative. I expect the GOP will like the things I dislike about him.
So more primaries yesterday. Clinton won at least four. As of this morning, she’s also leading in Missouri but it’s too close to call for sure. Kasich won Ohio, but Trump won three states, including Florida and is currently 0.2% ahead in Missouri. Depending on how the delegates shake out, Trump could be on the path to a clear majority in the delegates, which would give him the nomination outright. Projections now have him at 691, just a shade below the 700 he needs to be on track for majority.
After losing Florida, Rubio dropped out and gave a speech that was a reminder of why he was the candidate the Democrats feared most. With Rubio out, Cruz is now the clear NotTrump. But it may be too little, too late. Rubio and Kasich split off enough of the vote for Trump to win several states. Unless Cruz really starts surging, it won’t make a difference.
It’s not over yet. Arizona and Utah are next. Arizona is a closed primary and Trump had not done as well in closed primaries. Utah is a caucus and Trump’s support among Mormons is very low. You then have a bunch of contests stretching into May, including New York (where Trump should clean up) and Pennsylvania (a closed winner-take all primary). But, if Cruz starts winning some states, I suspect this will go down to California with its closed winner-take all 172 delegates on June 7. That will be the final battleground to stop Trump.
So yeah, we may have another three months of this. And then, maybe, another two months while we slug out the convention. Of course, even then, Trump will probably still have a plurality of delegates. And if he’s denied the nomination, it could get ugly.
Hold on to your britches, folks. It’s not over yet.
One of the many reasons Trump is winning? This one.
— Political Math (@politicalmath) March 15, 2016
Expect the media to turn on Trump once he’s the nominee. It’s all about electing Clinton. Always has been.
My position on voter ID is pretty straight-forward:
First, I think it is absolutely reasonable to require photo ID to vote. The claims that there is “no” vote fraud are hollow: we don’t require ID, therefore it is very hard to identify fraud. (That having been said, I don’t think there’s a lot of it, but there is some).
Second, I think it needs to be easy for law-abiding citizens to get photo ID. Many states have made it difficult to get voter IDs and for many poor people, especially minorities, acquiring documentation like birth certificates can be difficult. One of the Popehat bloggers recently tweeted about a client, a war veteran, who can’t vote because he can’t produce a birth certificate. Hospitals were segregated when he was born, his certificate was destroyed in a fire and computer records are unacceptable. I’ve heard a number of similar stories.
All that having been said, the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard about this issue was just uttered by our President:
We’re the only advanced democracy in the world that makes it harder for people to vote,” Obama said. “You’re laughing, but it’s sad.” Obama noted that it was “easier to order a pizza than vote. How do we redesign our systems so we don’t have 50% voter participation?” he asked.
First of all, we are not the only democracy in the world that makes it harder for people to vote, not by a longshot. And for photo ID, in particular, it’s not even close. Most countries require photo ID. The vast majority of Americans support it. The Supreme Court decided, 6-3, that this was not a huge burden on voters so long as it was easy to obtain the ID.
But easier to order a pizza than to vote? I fucking hope so. A pizza is a $10 commitment that feeds me for one day; a vote is a multi-trillion dollar commitment that can get us all taxed, regulated or killed for four years. I don’t give a rat’s ass if an illegal alien or a convicted felon or a 15-year-old buy a pizza. I do care if they vote.
(I watched the video and Obama wasn’t joking when he said this. He was being serious.)
He went on to suggest that we need to make it easier to vote, maybe even make it possible to vote online (because we all saw how well Healthcare.gov went). Look, I want to make it reasonably easy for people to vote. But I’ve never understood this burning desire to drag people kicking and screaming to the polls. If someone doesn’t want to vote, the most likely reason is the crappy choices they are presented with.
Donald Trump’s campaign on Friday postponed a rally in Chicago amid fights between supporters and demonstrators, protests in the streets and concerns that the environment at the event was no longer safe.
The announcement, which came amid large protests both inside and outside the event at the University of Illinois at Chicago, follows heightened concerns about violence in general at the GOP front-runner’s rallies. Illinois holds its Republican primary on Tuesday.
Hundreds of demonstrators packed into an arena, breaking out into protest even before Trump had shown up. At least five sections in the arena were filled with protesters.
“Mr. Trump just arrived in Chicago, and after meeting with law enforcement, has determined that for the safety of all of the tens of thousands of people that have gathered in and around the arena, tonight’s rally will be postponed to another date,” the Trump campaign said in a statement. “Thank you very much for your attendance and please go in peace.”
Several fistfights between Trump supporters and protesters could be seen after the announcement, as a large contingent of Chicago police officers moved in to restore order.
Supporters of Trump still inside chanted “We want Trump” after the event was canceled. Protesters, meanwhile, shouted “We shut s*** down” and “We stumped Trump.” Others chanted “Bernie” as supporters whipped out Bernie Sanders campaign signs.
A few things to unspool here.
First, I don’t have a lot of respect for the protesters. I understand that they don’t like Trump; I don’t like Trump. But disrupting his campaign and then boasting about how you shut someone up is simple thuggishness. Unfortunately, it’s the kind of thuggishness we’ve come to expect from the Left these days, especially from those in college or recently graduated. It’s not enough to disagree; it’s not enough to speak against; the opposition must be silenced.
I want to be clear: Donald Trump’s First Amendment Rights were not violated. The First Amendment protects us from government censorship, not private condemnation or censorship. But the tendency … no, the need of the Left Wing to silence those they disagree with is appalling. It used to be that the Left was proud of letting the KKK or Nazis speak … actual KKK and Nazi people, not people they were calling Nazi because they couldn’t refute their arguments.
Had the protesters made their point in some way without shutting down a political rally, I’d be fine. The Chicago protests grew out of comments Trump has made about police officers being the most oppressed people in the country. Chicagoans — who recently saw a long-buried video of an officer shooting a suspect who was walking away and found out about a dark site where thousands of suspects were detained and brutalized — don’t exactly agree. But disrupting a rally to the point of cancellation doesn’t make that point; it distracts from it.
Moreover, this plays right into Trump’s hands. So much so that many on Twitter were joking that Trump probably paid the protesters to do this. Trump’s entire schtick is that the voices of the American people are being silenced by a know-it-all politically-correct elite who have decided, without any input from us, that certain speech and certain viewpoints are unacceptable. How does this change that narrative? It doesn’t; it reinforces it. It convinces the American people, more than ever, that the political elite don’t want to hear what we have to say.
(Trump understands this. The decision to cancel the rally was his. The Chicago PD has said they were confident they could have kept the rally under control.)
Now it is true that Trump’s rallies have been the site of pro-Trump violence. It is also true that Trump himself has encouraged violence and made excuses for it. Last week, one Trump supporter sucker-punched a protester. Trump almost defended the punch, claiming (falsely) that the protester was hitting people and flailing around. A few days ago, his Campaign Manager grabbed a reporter hard enough to leave bruises. Trump’s people are still pretending it didn’t happen, despite video, audio and witnesses supporting the reporter’s account. In short, Donald Trump complaining about violence impinging his right to free speech is like Hillary Clinton complaining about dishonesty in politics.
I support Donald Trump's right to speak without fear of violence or being shouted down by thugs.
I wish he felt the same about me.
— Popehat (@Popehat) March 12, 2016
But the response to that is not to “bring more muscle” in the words of a certain recently fired Mizzou professor. The response is not to shout him down and stop him from speaking. The response is to show that you are better: that you will make your point while respecting his right to make his.
Unfortunately, that kind of mutual respect is no longer being taught to our young people. All that matters is “social justice”. Well, they might just “social justice” their way right into a Trump presidency.
One thing we need to dispense with is this curious notion that progressives are all about personal autonomy and choice. They aren’t. They’re that way about abortion. But they believe strongly that every other choice in life needs to be made for you by a benevolent government.
The latest is the long running War on Smoking. Not content with massive taxes, bans in public places, bans in private places and rules on smuggling that end up with street vendors selling “loosies” getting killed by cops, they now want to raise the age to buy cigarettes to 21 (because raising the drinking age worked so well). California is the second state to do this.
Now put aside the hilariously optimistic projections of how many lives this will save. Such projections have always turned out to be way too optimistic (see, e.g., lowering the speed limit to 55). Note the tone of the Vox piece: personal choice is irrelevant. What matters is the effect. If it means even one fewer person smoking, then eating away at the freedom of people old enough to fight in Iraq is worth it. There is no consideration, none whatsoever, to the idea of personal freedom … the seemingly quaint notion that if someone want to wreck their health, that’s their prerogative.
This is what progressivism has always been, since it slithered into existence a century ago: personal freedom doesn’t matter, all humans are assets and the laws should be written to maximize the utility of those assets to the state. Freedom and choice don’t matter; policy does. It’s why early progressivism favored things like alcohol prohibition, sex work prohibition and eugenics (seriously). They wanted to, as Mal Reynolds would say, make people better. And they still do.
I used to smoke but I don’t anymore. I regret ever having taken up the habit and I hope my children never do. But that should be their choice. An 18-year-old is an adult. They are more than capable of deciding whether or not to do something as stupid as smoking.
Because I am a glutton for punishment, I watched the GOP debate last night. It was much more “substantive” with less personal attacks. But “substantive” is relative term when Donald Trump is on the stage. Debating Trump on substance is like debating a goldfish: by the time he gets to the end of an answer, he’s forgotten what he said at the beginning. He said Iraq was a mistake but he would send more tens of thousands of troops to hit ISIS. He bashed Democrats for doing nothing about Social Security and then promised not to touch Social Security. He called the Tiananmen Square protests “riots” and refused to denounce violence at his own rallies.
But I’m getting into the weeds. The thing that really jumped out from last night debate was this: the GOP is becoming the Party of Trump, regardless of whether he’s the actual nominee or not.
For example: all the candidates on stage inveighed against free trade. The GOP used to understand that free trade was good for this country. Ted Cruz occasionally tried to make that point again: that the US has few trade barriers and that our trade deals mostly open markets for us in other countries. But the Sanders-Trump axis has latched onto American’s discontent with the economy and persuaded them that free trade is the name of their pain and the reason jobs have gone away.
It isn’t. Most of our manufacturing job losses are because of automation. Unless Donald Trump plans to physically rip robots out of factory floors — not completely impossible — that’s not changing. The real way to boost the job market in America is to make it easier to do business in America. Simplify regulations that destroy hundreds of billions of dollars in productivity and millions of jobs. Overhaul the corporate tax code that is equally damaging. Other countries are doing this; we’re going in the opposite direction, piling regulation upon regulation and tax code upon tax code. End that. Make America a place where it’s easy to do business. And corporations will stampede to do business here.
Trade tariffs are not “protection”. They’re a tax. They make everything we buy more expensive and don’t relocate a single job into this country. But the GOP has abandoned this.
And that was just one issue. On immigration, on foreign policy, on torture, on criminal justice, all the candidates came off as Trump Lite. That’s a mistake. If the voters have a choice between Trump and Trump-Lite, they will go with Trump. But no one on that stage had the gravitas to push back against Trumpism.
Between these two parties, I am convinced that, regardless of who wins the election, we are headed for another lost economic decade. No one outside of Paul Ryan seems to understand how hard it is to do business in this country and how many millions of jobs and billions in wages our tax and regulatory system destroy. No one wants to stand against anti-immigrant and anti-trade hysteria. No one seems to understand that getting more involved in the Middle East is a mistake. No one seems to understand or care about the pending budget crisis. We are caught between one party that wants to blow up the debt with tax cuts and spending and another that wants to blow it up with more spending and more spending.
Maybe the GOP can recover if someone manages to beat Trump. But that’s looking less and less likely. Look, I’m tired and I’m getting over a cold. Maybe I’m being too pessimistic. But watching last night’s debate, desperately hoping to see something to hpoe for after the big government dumpster fire that was the last Democratic debate, I felt like I looked into the abyss. And the abyss tried to sell me steaks.
Update: Rubio’s people today are urging their voters in Ohio to support Kasich so that Trump won’t win Ohio. Kasich (and Cruz) have declined to reciprocate.
I must say, this really impresses me. Rubio is putting the party and the country ahead of himself. Bravo.
One of the big promises the Democratic party is making these days is that they are going to make college “more affordable” or even “free” for Americans at public colleges and universities. Clinton is proposing $350 billion in new spending to basically replace student loans. Bernie Sanders wanted to make tuition free at public universities, which is a big reason for his support among young people. Matt Yglesias, one of the few liberals who was previously skeptical of this idea, has now come along for the free ride.
Now, never mind that we are already spending a lot of public money on higher education. States are spending more money than ever, over $80 billion, supporting their universities (per student spending is down because enrollments have swelled). Pell Grants alone have tripled over the last 15 years. And we have made a series of moves to try to make college loans more available.
The result? Higher costs, more spending, more debt. Tens of billions pumped in without college becoming one cent more affordable. Is there any reason to believe that another $35 billion a year or $50 billion a year or $100 billion a year will suddenly achieve that the previous trillions of have not?
No. Because economics exists.
Let’s imagine that you run an industry making sprockets. Let’s say that the American people are willing and able to pay about $100 billion for your sprockets. What would happen if the federal government came in and said, “Sprockets are too expensive! We will give the sprocket industry $50 billion to lower prices!” Unless they actually force you to lower prices, you’re going to now charge $150 billion for those sprockets — the $100 billion that Americans are willing to pay out of their own pockets plus the $50 billion you’re now getting from the government.
Indeed, this is what almost every economist has concluded about the cost of higher education. Massive government subsidies — through grants, state spending, scholarships and undischargeable loans — has massively increased the cost of higher education. It has resulted in universities hiring armies of administrators to do everything under the sun. It has resulted in a bloated overweight industry in which faculty hires are flat and much of the actual teaching is done by poorly-paid adjuncts.
So what’s going to happen when Clinton pours another $350 billion into that pool? Colleges will just raise the cost of higher education by about $350 billion, mainly by increasing enrollment.
And what will happen if Bernie Sanders guarantees “free” college? What’s to stop Michigan State from charging $100,000 a year for tuition? What’s to stop Georgia from enrolling 200,000 students? Even if half of those students fail, there are plenty more who will jump at a “free” education. And do you think North Carolina or Tennesee or any other university will care if they’re admitting semi-literate idiots as long as they get their money? (answer: no).
Anyone who believes that this program is actually going to reduce the cost of college, pardon my pointing this out, is an imbecile. Why? Because the price of anything depends on a) how much of it is purchased, and b) how much money is available to purchase it … When you make more money available to purchase anything, it simply drives up the cost of whatever is being purchased. Certain portions of our voting population, for reasons that baffle me, seem unable to learn this. Anything and everything that the government “helps to make more affordable” automatically becomes dramatically more expensive. The government makes money available to purchase health care; the cost of health care skyrockets. The government makes money available to purchase education; the cost of education skyrockets. These are, in fact, the two main things that the governments wants to pour money into, and the cost of both of them has been skyrocketing since the moment the government decided to make them “affordable” … There was a study about 15-20 years ago about the costs of various surgical proceedings; it studied about 20 different common surgeries. The study found that the normal price of every surgery that the government paid for — such as coronary bypass surgery — had gone up tremendously during the period of the study, while the price of every surgery that the government would NOT pay for, such as liposuction, laser eye surgery, and cosmetic dental repairs, had DROPPED dramatically in the same period. My memory is that every surgery that the government refused to pay for had dropped in price by at least 70% over the course of the study, while other health care costs were increasingly rapidly. Well, OF COURSE it would. Anyone who has ever taken Economics 101 should KNOW that that is what would happen, and would expect it to happen … And yet, cynical politicians like Hilary Clinton keep INSISTING, generation after generation, millions after millions, billions after billions, trillions after trillions, that they are “making health care affordable” when they pour more money into its purchase! It is unbelievable to me that anyone actually believes that this is true … Look, if you want the cost of college to drop, STOP POURING MONEY INTO ITS PURCHASE. Of course we have to help poor people get access to education; of course we have to help minorities get a fair shake. But the rest of us are NOT being helped by this insane policy.
As James noted in later discussions, the only way government have stayed out of this trap is by rationing and price-controlling. In the case of healthcare, limiting the number of procedures performed or capping doctor’s fees; in the case of higher education, limiting the number of students who go to college or limiting what universities can charge. No sane government would create a system where colleges could admit as many students as they wanted and charge whatever they wanted with a federal guarantee of payment.
Indeed, countries that guarantee “free education” send way fewer students to college than we do and limit what their colleges can spend. The problem is that this would never happen in the United States. It would never happen because academics are one of the most reliable sources of Democratic votes in the universe (95%, a level of party loyalty only seen among evangelical Christians, which make sense given that some academic sounds like they’re speaking in tongues). And it would never happen because public universities and colleges are state-controlled institutions.
Again … this is not rocket surgery. This is basic economics. No one would with an IQ larger than Donald Trump’s jock size thinks that just handing over money to an industry is a good idea. Clinton is not an idiot (Sanders might be). She certainly has people around her who understand this. The Democrats have repeatedly called for price controls or rationing in federal healthcare (they don’t call it that; they call it “negotiation”; but that’s what it is).
But when it comes to the cost controls necessary for “free” education, both candidates are oddly silent. Sanders’ “plan” is just a vague promise of free education with no sense of cost control. Clinton’s is more detailed but, if I understand it, would subsidize the states on the promise that they would control college costs. Even if the states controlled costs, they would do so by cutting their own subsidies to higher education so that they could spend it on something else (the same way that they used the lottery to fund K-12 education).
So why are Democrats pushing this nonsense? Why won’t they admit that the only this would make education more affordable is by forcing universities to cap costs or enroll fewer students? Part of this is to avoid pissing off their base of support among young people and academics. But there’s something else going on here. James again:
I refuse to believe that Hilary is actually stupid enough that she doesn’t realize what she is doing. She (and her cohorts) are deliberately driving up the cost of education in order to make the middle class dependent on the government
Give that man a cigar!
Remember a few years ago when the Obama Administration put out “the Life of Julia”? It depicts a woman going from cradle to grave with government subsidy after government subsidy directing her life. It created such a backlash that I can’t even find the original to link it. All the top links are mockeries, debunkings and parodies.
What creates more dependence? People paying $10,000 out of their own pockets for a $10,000 higher education? Or people paying $10,000 out of their pockets and getting $30,000 in government grants for a $40,000 education?
This is the Democratic vision for America — total dependence upon the state from cradle to grave with every election being an auction between two big parties promising ever greater baubles.
The bad news is that, at this point, it seems that Clinton is very likely to be the next President. And if she isn’t, Sanders might be. And if he isn’t, Trump might be and God know what Trump will do. The good news, however, is that none of this can get done without Congress.
This will be a recurring them with me for the next eight months. It would be nice if the Republicans won the White House. But is absolutely vital that they retain the House, if not the Senate as well. It’s the only way to keep a cap on this madness.