|
You may have read in the WSJ yesterday: “States Revenue Shortfalls Exacerbate Budget Crunch.” My friend Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at Cato, had to laugh at the “states as victims” part. You’ve probably guessed why:
“States as victims” is a common storyline in the mainstream media anytime that state budgets are not growing gangbusters. States need to balance their general fund budgets each year, and so it is true that state policymakers must be more responsible than the spend-and-borrow politicians in Washington. But news stories on the states rarely provide the important context of how much budgets have grown over time.
The chart below—based on NASBO data—shows general fund revenues since fiscal 2010, with projected revenues for fiscal 2017. To achieve annual balance, the “tough” task of state policymakers is simply to keep spending rising no faster than these revenues.
Does the chart look like a “crunch” to you with “weak” revenue? And if 33 percent revenue growth over seven years and 3.6 percent projected growth in 2017 creates a “shortfall,” what do you think the problem is?
Read more here.
|
| >> read more |
|
 Congratulations to Sig Sauer chosen by the U.S. Army as their handgun supplier. I have owned a Sig for years, specifically their 9mm P226 and have taken a number of training courses at Sig Sauer Academy. Meghann Myers writes at Army Times:
Half a decade into its search for a new handgun, the Army has chosen Sig Sauer’s version of the Modular Handgun System, according to a Thursday announcement from the Army.
The new sidearm will replace the M9 Beretta, the Army’s pistol of choice for more than 30 years.
“I am tremendously proud of the Modular Handgun System team,” said Army acquisition executive Steffanie Easter in the release. “By maximizing full and open competition across our industry partners, we have optimized private sector advancements in handguns, ammunition and magazines and the end result will ensure a decidedly superior weapon system for our warfighters.”
The Army first announced the competition for the MHS back in 2011, but multiple delays left the most recent solicitation deadline at February of 2016.
Sig Sauer beat out Smith & Wesson, Beretta and Glock for the contract worth up to $580 million, which includes firearms, accessories and ammunition.
The Army did not immediately provide any additional information Thursday evening, including specifics on the weapon or the caliber of the round.
“As MHS moves forward into operational testing, the due diligence taken by all of the stakeholders will ensure a program that remains on-budget and on-schedule,” Easter said.
After operational testing, the new pistol should be fielded this year, according to the release.
While the Beretta M9 has been the Army’s pistol since 1985, the military uses other handguns, including Sig Sauers, particularly in special operations. Green Berets regularly use Glock 9mm pistols, and last year Marine Special Operations allowed use of the 9mm Glock 19. Navy SEALs generally use the Sig Sauer P226 and, on occasion, Heckler & Koch’s .45-caliber HK45C.
Read more here.
|
| >> read more |
|
 Jonah Goldberg, among National Review’s top #nevertrumpers, spoke at the Cato Institute’s always well-attended, enlightening annual event in Naples, Florida. Mr. Goldberg was preceded by keynote speaker Jonathan Turley, lawyer, legal scholar and professor of law at George Washington University Law School.
Mr. Turley explained to the audience why he, while very critical of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, was toasting the inauguration of the 45th president of the United States. In an article in USA Today, he wrote, Trump “is by any measure our duly elected” president.
While Bill Clinton insisted that his wife lost because Trump figured out “how to get angry, white men to vote for him,” the fact is that it was the Democratic leadership that secured the election for Trump. Despite long-standing polls showing that voters did not want an establishment figure, the establishment pre-selected Clinton, who is not only one of the most recognized establishment figures but someone carrying more luggage than Greyhound. She is also someone who had even higher negative polling on character and truthfulness than Trump. And as Jonah Goldberg noted, a very low bar for sure.
The point is not to belittle the basis or numbers of opponents to Trump. Yet, there is an effort to establish a mythology that Trump was elected by white men and heavily opposed by women. Worse yet, there is an effort to portray him as some presidential pretender to the office. In reality, it is Democratic leaders who have abandoned tradition and denigrated our democracy by refusing to stand with the new president at his inauguration.
As an example, Professor Turley wrote about Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., who evidently carried out her promise to not attend the inauguration because she did not want to “contribute to the normalization of the president-elect’s divisive rhetoric by participating in the inauguration.”
But as Turley asserts, “normalization” is the democratic process. “We are celebrating not a particular victor but the fact that there was a victor — a democratically elected victor followed by a peaceful transition of power.”
Jonah Goldberg’s luncheon address was as libertarian-oriented and entertaining as Jonathan Turley’s. His encouraging lesson was to embrace the good things about President Trump and be critical should Trump follow the path of what Jonah calls Obama’s “clay footsteps.” We are a nation of laws, and regardless of how unhappy any of us might be with the elected president, that person, like Barack Obama and each president before him, is not going to be in office forever. When President Obama ruled by executive order, a.k.a. “his pen,” as he famously gloated, he failed to undertake the arduous process of getting Congress behind him. In so doing, any of his EOs can be axed by the next newly elected president. By not undertaking the painfully hard process of getting Congress to pass a law, the next president can hack away at every EO.
Our Founders based the Constitution on three branches, each to have equal weighting in order to keep one another in check. Executive orders weaken the presidency by skewing the leverage of the three branches. EOs give the office of the president more temporary power but weaken our Constitution.
Peter Goettler, Cato’s enthusiastic new president, hosted the Naples Cato event with aplomb and humor. The Ritz Naples, along with Cato’s competent staff, does a superb job on service, food and valet parking (no joke). If you’ve not been to a Cato event or to Naples, consider this a must.
|
| >> read more |
|
 Cato Institute was packed to the walls at their annual conclave-of-the-committed at the Ritz Naples. Cato returns to the Ritz every year for the hotel’s world class logistics, excellent service and overall organization and more than acceptable resort-class fare.
Cato’s nearly 500 guests had flocked to this Southwestern Florida semi-tropical outpost to listen to Cato’s renowned (Michael’s a friend) Obamacare expert Michael Cannon, distinguished George Washington law professor Jonathon Turley (talk about a smart guy), and well-bruised and beaten (but still standing) National Review star Jonah Goldberg.
Jonah and National Review for that matter had been on the anti-Trump bandwagon from day number one. National Review former publisher Jack Fowler is a gentleman whom Debbie and I view as a friend, so we were disappointed to be on the opposite side of the fight from friends like Jack and writers like Jonah. I was a little concerned for Jonah’s safety at the podium, half expecting one of Naples’ golfing elites to send an eight-iron shot Jonah’s way.
Well nothing doing. Jonah was 100% on his game from the start and disarmed the packed “Trump Room” right out of the box. Good for him. It could not have been as easy as it looked. What seems like a generation ago, I spoke before thousands of investors all over the world from New Orleans to Hong Kong to Switzerland and San Francisco. It is no light task on a good day, but I never had reason to be concerned about taking a high level trashing like I thought Jonah might be in for. Oh well, no harm no foul as they say. Jonah, while looking mighty hot up on stage, won the day with his perfect timing, marvelous humor, command of his material, and his cheery demeanor. How nice indeed. A really good guy and a delightful day for Cato/Naples attendees.
Mr. Goldberg told his audience that the American people feel alienated and that America’s institutions are under water. Jonah emphasized that Republicans today need to return the days of Ronald Reagan, who was a master storyteller. This is how to communicate with the American people. Regarding Hillary Clinton, Goldberg opined that whipping her was really a low bar that was akin to beating gas station sushi at a Alabama gas station. Get the tone? Thanks a lot JG. A great day for one and all at Cato/Naples.
Tomorrow I will continue with a look at our friend Cato’s Michael Cannon’s remarks.
|
| >> read more |
|
 Yes, undoubtedly under full repeal of ObamaCare, some Americans would lose coverage. But as Cato’s director of health care policies Michael F. Cannon explains, “The actual number of people who would lose coverage under full repeal is likely comparable to the number who would if and when ObamCare collapses of its own weight.”
Dick and I have known Michael for a number of years. Michael was the third speaker at the terrific Cato event Dick and I attended at the Ritz Naples this past week. Repeal of ObamaCare is a complicated matter, and Michael packed a lot of information into a short period of time on the complications facing Republicans under Repeal/Partial Repeal.
Under full repeal, however, not only would premiums automatically fall for the vast majority of Exchange enrollees, but Congress could proactively provide a safety net for those who still cannot afford coverage and enact further reforms that improve healthcare for all Americans. Medicaid block grants, expanded health savings accounts, and other reforms would make healthcare better, more affordable, and more secure through lower prices and more sustainable coverage. Congress could even do it all in one bill.
Under the GOP’s partial-repeal strategy, by contrast, the CBO estimates ObamaCare’s regulations would cause premiums to rise an additional 20-25 percent next year and to double over the next decade. The regulations would cause health insurance markets to collapse, such that ten percent of Americans would not be able to purchase coverage at any price. All told, partial repeal would leave uninsured nine million Americans who would have insurance under full repeal.
Why are Republicans even entertaining a partial repeal? Senate rules, they believe, don’t allow them to repeal the regulations with a simple majority. But that is a mistaken belief, says Michael.
With a 52-seat majority, Republicans don’t have the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Democratic filibuster of a repeal bill. But Senate rules do, in fact, allow repeal of ObamaCare’s insurance regulations through the special “budget reconciliation” process that requires only 51 votes to approve legislation. Even if the Senate parliamentarian misinterprets those rules — and this would be an egregious misinterpretation — a majority of the Senate can overrule that misinterpretation.
ObamaCare reform cannot happen with ACA’s regulations still on the books, argues Michael Cannon. “In short, the question is not whether Republicans can repeal the regulations. It is whether they have the will.”
Michael F. Cannon discusses repealing Obamacare on KCRW’s To the Point
|
| >> read more |
|
My long time friend Michael Cannon is the director of health policy studies at Cato Institute. I recently had an opportunity to catch up with Michael at Cato’s packed house conclave at the Ritz Naples. Time is always at a premium at these overflow room policy events, and Michael could have used some more running room. Nonetheless attendees clearly grasped Michael’s primary message regarding ObamaCare “full repeal is better than partial repeal.” In a recent, all encompassing article, from the Cato Institute Michael gave readers the whole story from A to Z. He writes:
After seven years of promising to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as ObamaCare, Republicans are toying with a dangerous strategy that would repeal the law’s mandates and subsidies but leave intact its the most harmful feature — the regulations it imposes on health insurance. This is despite warnings that a partial repeal would be far more disruptive. A new report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows just how much more disruptive.
Under full repeal not only would premiums automatically fall for the vast majority of Exchange enrollees, but Congress could proactively provide a safety net for those who still cannot afford coverage and enact further reforms that improve healthcare for all Americans. Medicaid block grants, expanded health savings accounts, and other reforms would make healthcare better, more affordable, and more secure through lower prices and more sustainable coverage. Congress could even do it all in one bill.
With a 52-seat majority, Republicans don’t have the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Democratic filibuster of a repeal bill. But Senate rules do, in fact, allow repeal of Obamacare’s insurance regulations through the special “budget reconciliation” process that requires only 51 votes to approve legislation. Even if the Senate parliamentarian misinterprets those rules — and this would be an egregious misinterpretation — a majority of the Senate can overrule that misinterpretation.
In short, the question is not whether Republicans can repeal the regulations. It is whether they have the will.
Reform cannot happen with ObamaCare’s regulations on the books, however. Every day Congress delays, it relegates more patients with expensive conditions to lousy, overpriced coverage.
Read more here.
Michael F. Cannon discusses Obamacare on FBN’s Kennedy
|
| >> read more |
|
The Washington D.C. rumor mill is saying that Elliot Abrams could be the next Deputy Secretary of State. This would be a tragic insult to Donald Trump’s supporters who voted for an end to the type of endless, senseless war-making advocated by Abrams, an original member of the Project for a New American Century, the think tank that drove America into the Iraq War.
Daniel Larison, writing at The American Conservative reports on the possibility Abrams will be added to the Trump administration.
Abrams’ name had been mentioned before, but it seemed hard to believe that Trump would want one of his most vehement critics in his administration. The “good” news is that Bolton won’t be getting the job after all, but in his place will be someone with an equally awful foreign policy record and similarly warped judgment. Abrams is a Bush administration veteran and one of the most committed Iraq war dead-enders. He has the added distinction of having been involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, and withheld information from Congress when they were investigating it. Putting him in an important foreign policy position gives us strong evidence that Trump and Tillerson both have poor judgment, and it tells us that we should expect that the administration’s foreign policy will become even more aggressive and meddlesome than it already has been.
Daniel DePetris laid out the case against appointing Abrams last month:
But if Trump indeed formally nominates Abrams, he will be promoting a man who has shown a willful disdain of congressional overseers to the point of being convicted on charges coming close to perjury. Can President Trump be assured that Abrams would be able to withstand the scrutiny during his confirmation hearings? And more importantly, is the neoconservative, unilateral interventionism that Abrams has advocated for throughout his career—and that led directly to the second Iraq War—the kind of foreign-policy doctrine that President Trump wants in his State Department?
One good thing about Trump’s success seemed to be that it would mean the exile of neoconservatives from important positions in the government for a few more years, but if this report is correct Trump has no problem giving them one of the more influential foreign policy jobs.
Read more here.
|
| >> read more |
|
There is quite a difference in the methods used by biodynamic vineyards and those using ‘traditional’ growing methods loaded with fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides. Biodynamics is a farming method with some similarities to organic, but more expansive and with less government (i.e. lobbyist) involvement. According to the Biodynamic Association, the method is “a holistic, ecological, and ethical approach to farming, gardening, food and nutrition. Biodynamic agriculture has been practiced for nearly a century, on every continent on Earth. Biodynamic principles and practices are based on the spiritual insights and practical suggestions of Dr. Rudolf Steiner, and have been developed through the collaboration of many farmers and researchers since the early 1920’s.”
A handy reference to the difference between vineyards employing biodynamics and ‘traditional’ farming methods was recently published by the Gevrey Wine Club, discussing the different faces of farming in Vôsne Romanée, where the Monks of St. Vivant began making wine in the twelfth century.
Many of the vineyards in Vôsne are farmed biodynamically. This immaculately tended vineyard has furrows between the vine rows. They were ploughed in December. The soil is piled up against the base of the vine to provide additional protection to the root system for the cold winter months. Ploughing aerates the soil and encourages the decomposition of inert matter, which in turn provides nutrients to feed the vine. At the same time, lateral roots are severed by the plough, encouraging the main roots to go deeper into the strata, contributing depth, originality and complexity to the wine.
Read more here.
|
| >> read more |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
