Everything Important In Life Involves Tradeoffs

/

  • One of the fallacies of progressivism that I frequently mock at this blog is the proposition that the government can operate without having to make meaningful tradeoffs of one goal or value versus another.

  • This fallacy appears, for example, in the illusion of infinite resources in the hands of the government. As individuals we all know that we face constrained budgets and limits on what we can do. Eat out too much, and you need to postpone getting the new TV or new car. Decide to become a lawyer, and you will need to forego becoming a doctor. Your money and your time only go so far.

  • But somehow it can appear that the government is so huge and has such vast resources at its command that there are no practical limits, and no need for tradeoffs. And thus we get monstrosities like the Bernie Sanders (and Joe Biden?) program for a federal government that eliminates all downsides of human life by passing out the infinite free money. Or see the latest “Heroes Act” out of the House of Representatives — $3 trillion to take care of everyone’s pain from the coronavirus response; Medicare for All, Free College, and Batteries not included (yet).

  • Another aspect of the no-tradeoffs-necessary fallacy is the idea that the right thing for political leaders to do in a crisis is to rely on the “experts.” . . .

Read More

Why Do Progressives Want To Keep The Economy Shut Down?

/

  • As noted in my post a few days ago (“Republican Governors Are Kicking The Butts Of Democratic Governors On Covid-19 Response”), a clear dichotomy has opened up between left and right over whether and how quickly the economy should reopen, now that our pandemic is in decline.

  • Republicans advocate for a quicker reopening, and many Republican governors are well into implementing that. The President has also come down on the side of optimism and early reopening.

  • On the Democratic side, the response is something like “YOU WILL HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS!!!”

  • The upper right-hand corner of the front page of the New York Times is a place where in the old days you would look for the most important news of the day. These days the article occupying that spot generally has little to do with real news, but instead informs you of the official Democratic Party talking point of the day.

Read More

So What Was The Russia Hoax Really About?

/
So What Was The Russia Hoax Really About?

  • Have you been thinking lately that the more we learn about the Obama administration’s Russia hoax, the less sense it makes? For years now, the working hypothesis of conservative pundits has been that the narrative of Trump campaign collusion with Russia was a Deep State plot from the likes of Brennan/Comey/McCabe/Strzok to weaken and potentially remove Trump from office — a “soft coup,” if you will.

  • That hypothesis was always hard to understand — why would such high ranking officials take big risks with such a transparently ridiculous narrative with little chance of succeeding? — and in my view has become even less consistent with what we know as more facts have recently come out.

  • So what was the Russia hoax really about? Here’s my alternative hypothesis. Its origin was entirely about giving Hillary an illicit assist in winning the 2016 election.

Read More

Republican Governors Are Kicking The Butts Of Democratic Governors On Covid-19 Response

/
Republican Governors Are Kicking The Butts Of Democratic Governors On Covid-19 Response

  • The governors of the 50 states got handed a heavy responsibility by this virus to make decisions as to whether to impose a “lockdown” on their respective economies, and if so, how severe of one. Lock down too little, and you could face higher infection and death rates than other states, for which you would get immediate media attacks and blame; but lock down too much, and you could impose massive and potentially unnecessary economic harm on your citizens.

  • Universally, the so-called “expert” medical and scientific advisors counseled in favor of the most severe possible lockdowns — but then, their focus is only on preventing the deaths, and they have no particular expertise in the workings of an economy.

  • While the dichotomy is not perfect, in general most Democratic governors opted for early and strict versions of lockdown, and have not begun to ease their lockdowns even now; meanwhile most Republican governors imposed lockdowns later (or in at least one case, not at all), and in less severe form, and have begun loosening them earlier.

  • The results of the differing policies are far from final at this point, but data have begun to emerge. . . .

Read More

Why Are Government Employees Supposedly Immune To Layoffs?

/

  • It’s the time of the coronavirus, and as we all know, that means that it is the moral responsibility of all governors and state health officials to issue “lockdown” commands, compelling all “non-essential” businesses to close until further notice.

  • Although the sweep and severity of these “lockdown” commands has varied from state to state, at this point the governors of most states have ordered the closure of nearly all restaurants, bars, hotels, gyms, hair salons, and thousands of similar businesses.

  • Obviously, the immediate result of these orders was going to be that the employees of the businesses would get furloughed or laid off. Some 26 million new unemployment claims had been filed by late April, with more undoubtedly to be revealed in the next weekly report.

  • Of course, with thousands of businesses shuttering, and their revenues disappearing, state and local tax revenues are also falling off a cliff. So if the same rules apply to these governmental entities as to private businesses, they would be about to make massive layoffs as well.

  • And yet, if you look at discussion about how state and local governments should deal with their own financial issues, somehow the whole idea that government workers might get laid off is beyond the purview of polite discussion.

Read More

Will The Rogue FBI/CIA/DOJ Operatives Ever Be Brought To Justice For Crossfire Hurricane?

/

  • It has been obvious now for multiple years that the whole Trump/Russia “collusion” narrative was a total hoax from the start, concocted by high-ranking but rogue members of the intelligence community in the latter days of the Obama administration.

  • This misuse of the powers of the government by the intelligence community to attempt to influence the 2016 election, and then to undermine President Trump after his election, has been described by many as the greatest scandal in American political history. The perpetrators of the scandal range from CiA head John Brennan, to FBI head James Comey, to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, to senior FBI agent Peter Strzok, and many others too numerous to mention.

  • All of the people named have lost their previous jobs, but beyond that none have thus far faced any consequences, particularly any criminal prosecution. They have books on sale or cable news gigs or both. We know that a federal criminal prosecutor, John Durham, has been named by Attorney General Barr to look into the matter, but after many months, we hear nothing. Several commenters have asked for my thoughts on whether criminal consequences are likely for any of these miscreants, and, if so, on what basis.

  • My bottom line: As egregious as the conduct of these people was, I still think it’s only about 50/50 that any of them get charged and convicted of any criminal offense.

Read More