Running Out Of Other People's Money, New York And Federal Versions

/

  • I’m old enough to remember a time when government officeholders thought that a significant part of their job was prioritizing various options for public spending, in recognition that overspending on lower priorities would mean that nothing would be left for higher priorities.

  • The new fad is an unending tidal wave of proposals for new government programs and spending initiatives which will, any day now, bring perfect justice and fairness to the world. Which ones will we implement? All of them!

  • The budgeting process in New York City under the reign of uber-progressive Mayor Bill de Blasio and a like-minded City Council has been one where any idea that sounds like it might be “doing good” promptly gets funded. I’ll give you a few examples of my favorite wildly skewed spending priorities. . . .

  • But, with the economy booming, what do we care? Don’t we have plenty of money for whatever spending initiative sounds good at the moment? Actually, we are reaching limits all over the place.

  • Over in the Democratic Party race for the presidential nomination, the key qualification for running is an unshakable belief that it is impossible to run out of other people’s money.

Read More

Annals Of Presidential Elections, Latin American Edition

/

  • Here in the U.S., our tradition has long been that we accept the results of our elections, and in particular our presidential elections. The losing side becomes a loyal opposition, free to express its disagreement with everything the winner does in office, but never contesting the right of the winner to exercise the powers of the office. At least that was the way it worked for the first 57 presidential elections.

  • Anyway, that was then. Now, places like the New York Times and the Washington Post declare to be heroes the bureaucrats who defy any and all directions of the duly-elected President and who search for any grounds they can take to the press or to Congress to undermine the President’s authority and get him removed. In simple terms, elections only count when our side wins.

  • This rule may be new in the United States, but not in other places. Indeed, our neighbors in Latin America can give us plenty of examples of how things come out under the rule that “elections only count when our side wins.” Two examples are in the process of playing out right now.

Read More

The Bidens: "Stone Cold Crooked" (4)

/

  • Before getting off my current Bidens kick, I want to take just a one more moment to consider Joe Biden’s most recent response when he was asked by a radio interviewer in New Hampshire whether he had discussed with his son Hunter the son’s service on the board of Ukrainian gas producer Burisma.

  • “At one point that it came out that [Hunter] was on the board [of Burisma]. I said, ‘I sure hope to hell you know what you’re doing.' Period. I said that.”

  • The question is not whether Hunter knew what he was doing, but rather whether Joe did. Is it really possible that Joe Biden could not have immediately figured out Zlochevsky’s intent in hiring his son in a do-almost-nothing position for $1 million per year? Does Joe really to this day have no idea that he had been corrupted? How dense can a person be?

Read More

The Bidens: "Stone Cold Crooked" (3) -- Any Remaining Doubt Should Be Investigated!

/

  • On October 6 I put up two posts calling the two Bidens, Joe and Hunter, “stone cold crooked.” The basis for the label was a series of factual assertions listed in the first of the posts, none of which had received any meaningful refutation in any source I could find.

  • Since the October 6 posts, facts keep coming out that, as far as I can see, only make the Bidens’ position more and more indefensible.

  • Simultaneously, organs of the progressive press keep doubling down on the narrative that there is “no evidence” of wrongdoing of the Bidens in Ukraine, and any assertion to the contrary is a “conspiracy theory.”

  • Let me list some facts that have at least come to my attention since those prior posts. . . .

  • One thing is immediately obvious about each of these issues: all or almost all of the relevant documents and witnesses are in Ukraine. In other words, if you want to take testimony or subpoena documents, you are going to need to go through a Ukrainian prosecutor. So is anybody in the U.S. government allowed to ask that these obvious pieces of evidence of corruption be investigated?

Read More

A Serious Contender For Stupidest Litigation In The Country Goes To Trial

/

  • From time to time here at this blog I have considered candidates for the title of “Stupidest Litigation in the Country.”

  • Today I have a new candidate for the coveted title. The title of the case is People of the State of New York v. ExxonMobil Corp., currently pending in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County. Trial in this case began today.

  • The history of the case goes back to a big press conference held by then NY AG Eric Schneiderman, together with AGs from some 20 or so other states, and Al Gore, in March 2016, to breathlessly announce that they were commencing a prosecution of Exxon for lying to the public for years about the dangers of human-caused climate change when knowing all along how catastrophic it was and that they were causing it. A massive investigation commenced. After a flurry of subpoenas and some 4 million or so documents produced, many documents emerged wherein Exxon openly acknowledged the risks of climate change, thus contradicting the theory of the investigation; the 20 or so AGs who had previously supported Schneiderman all walked away from the case; Schneiderman himself resigned in disgrace in May 2018 in a sex scandal involving much physical violence on his part; and the whole theory that Exxon had lied to the public about the dangers of climate change or its role in same was quietly withdrawn.

  • The new Complaint is some 91 pages long, but remarkably there’s almost nothing there.

Read More

Obviously People In The Permanent Bureaucracy Are Working To Undermine And Remove President Trump

/

  • In recent months the phrase “conspiracy theory” seems to have taken on a whole new meaning. At one time the phrase was reserved for only the craziest of crazy far-out and unprovable theories.

  • We now have voices in the media using the phrase “conspiracy theory” to refer to President Trump’s assertions that people in the permanent bureaucracy are working to undermine his administration and remove him from office.

  • Funny, but I could cite dozens of examples of the media and Democrats excitedly cheering on government career operatives and holdovers trying to thwart Trump’s agenda, and doing it completely out in the open and without any kind of attempted secrecy.

  • The recent impeachment brouhaha is no less of an open and notorious initiative by elements of the permanent bureaucracy to undermine and remove the President. While some in the Democrat media may call that a “conspiracy theory,” others are openly bragging about it and cheering the conspirators as heroes.

Read More