California Assembly Speaker receives death threats over dropping single-payer health care bill

Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press

Breitbart reports that California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) has received death threats for blocking an Assembly vote on a single-payer health care bill.

What is fascinating about this is that Rendon actually supports a single-payer system! He just doesn’t believe that the current bill was ready from prime time, calling it “woefully incomplete”. The San Jose Mercury News quoted the following from a statement he released:

[The bill] does not address many serious issues, such as financing, delivery of care, cost controls or the realities of needed action by the Trump administration and voters to make SB 562 a genuine piece of legislation.

In light of this, I have decided SB 562 will remain in the Assembly Rules Committee until further notice.

Leftists, however, aren’t exactly known for being patient.

In return, he has begun to receive death threats. Rendon told the Sacramento Bee that he and his family have begun receiving threats through social media, including one that advised him to check “his schedule for baseball practice,” a reference to the shooting attack on several congressional Republicans at a baseball practice earlier this month.

Rendon also told the San Jose Mercury News that he felt threatened specifically because critics were accusing him of causing the death of people who, they claimed, would not have health care if it did not come from the new bill.

“What’s really bothersome for me is to read some of the threads and some of the comments from people who really believe that this bill would have actually provided services. What’s disappointing is that those folks seem to have been sold a bill of goods,” Rendon told the Bee.

One group that appears to be stirring the pot is the California Nurses Association, which has been pushing hard in Sacramento for a single-payer health care system in the state.

The California Nurses Association, which supports the single-payer bill, has reportedly dismissed Rendon’s claims about receiving death threats as an attempt to distract the public.

“There are real death threats out there,” said California Nurses Association spokesperson Chuck Idleson to the Mercury News, “for people who are facing a loss of health care.”

I’m embarrassed when I think about how I used to talk like this sanctimonious idiot.

Now where would anyone get the idea that Rendon is threatening people lives by not pursuing the bill? Could it have anything to do with the demonstration from which the above photo was taken?

On Wednesday, protesters from the California Nurses Association flooded the State Capitol and displayed a banner reading “Inaction = Death,” according to the Los Angeles Times. They also held signs depicting the California state flag, with a knife in the back of the familiar bear. They accused Speaker Rendon of stabbing the bear in the back.

Signs like these make me think twice about going to a hospital to receive treatment.

At the national level, Democrats have used similar language to protest Republicans’ effort to overhaul Obamacare, claiming the GOP is killing thousands of people.

The Los Angeles Daily News reports that the California Highway Patrol is investigating the threats against Rendon.

Something tells me that those threats were meant to be taken seriously.

 

I don’t know when this madness in the Golden State is going to end, but there’s no sign of calmness returning anytime soon.

Veritas Project releases “American Pravda: Part 1, CNN”

Last night, James O’Keefe of Veritas Project released a teaser video on Twitter in which a hidden camera captures a CNN producer saying that the Russian narrative is bull**it.

Today, Veritas Project released Part 1 of its American Pravda series, in which the focus is on CNN.

The ominous title hints in a not-so-subtle manner that the American Pravda series will be targeting other MSM outfits.

So far, the video Veritas has captured so far is damning. John Bonifield clearly states that media is a business, and their editorial slant is geared towards satisfying liberal viewers who liked Obama but hate Trump.

That’s why the network has been focusing so much on Russia. There’s no real evidence indicating Russia actually tried to manipulate the previous presidential election. However, this focus is terrific for CNN’s ratings.

If this is only Part 1 of American Pravda, I can’t wait to see what happens next!

 

 

 

 

Seymour Hersh: The US attacked Syria knowing sarin wasn’t used in “gas attack”

In an earlier post, I documented my disgust with President Trump when he launched Tomahawk missiles against Syrian targets, in apparent retaliation of Syria’s use of sarin gas in an attack.

However, Seymour Hersh reports that while the American intelligence community knew that the Syrian did not use chemical weapons in general, and sarin particular, in the attack in question, Trump ordered the bombing anyways.

On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.

Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.

The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives.

Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.

Hersh’s article is lengthy, and is worth reading in its entirety. However, the jist of the article is clear and, frankly, shocking.

 

Trump tweets on Obama turn tables on Democrats

For months, Democrats have tried to come up with some sort of evidence, any sort of evidence, demonstrating that Trump was somehow colluding with the Russians to win the 2016 election. Since November, all of the heat was generated by the left, and directed towards Trump.

However, earlier today, Trump launched four tweets that not only can the Democrats not ignore, but will more likely send them into an uncontrollable tizzy.

Frankly, what Trump did was ingenious. He took what the Democrats have been arguing all along, and reframed the discussion that puts the spotlight squarely on them.

When Democrats whine about how Trump’s tweets are not presidential, it has nothing to do with maintaining the dignity of the office. However, it has everything to do with trying everything they can to control what he says.

The Democrats simply can’t handle Trump. Their policies don’t work, and they can’t intimidate him into backing down.

The fact that they have no idea what Trump will post next makes them extremely uncomfortable.

Good.

 

U of Washington study shows the minimum wage isn’t working in Seattle

For decades, liberals have been under the illusion that raising the minimum wage magically raises incomes for poor people. Unfortunately, unless one slept through Econ 101, one cannot help but recognize that raising the minimum wage helps only a portion of the working poor, and keeps the marginally productive out of the workforce.

Seattle was one of the first cities who noisily proclaimed the dawn of a new era for the working poor by gradually raising the minimum wage in that city to $15 an hour. However, a new study by University of Washington economists shows statistically what ought to be obvious logically.

When Seattle officials voted three years ago to incrementally boost the city’s minimum wage up to $15 an hour, they’d hoped to improve the lives of low-income workers. Yet according to a major new study that could force economists to reassess past research on the issue, the hike has had the opposite effect.

The city is gradually increasing the hourly minimum to $15 over several years. Already, though, some employers have not been able to afford the increased minimums. They’ve cut their payrolls, putting off new hiring, reducing hours or letting their workers go, the study found.

The costs to low-wage workers in Seattle outweighed the benefits by a ratio of three to one, according to the study, conducted by a group of economists at the University of Washington who were commissioned by the city. The study, published as a working paper Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has not yet been peer reviewed.

On the whole, the study estimates, the average low-wage worker in the city lost $125 a month because of the hike in the minimum.

The reaction among liberal “economists” (a phrase that I’ll address later) has been swift, primarily because past statistical studies have shown presumably the positive impact from raising the minimum wage.

The paper’s conclusions contradict years of research on the minimum wage. Many past studies, by contrast, have found that the benefits of increases for low-wage workers exceed the costs in terms of reduced employment — often by a factor of four or five to one.

“This strikes me as a study that is likely to influence people,” said David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not involved in the research. He called the work “very credible” and “sufficiently compelling in its design and statistical power that it can change minds.”

Yet the study will not put an end to the dispute. Experts cautioned that the effects of the minimum wage may vary according to the industries dominant in the cities where they are implemented along with overall economic conditions in the country as a whole.

And critics of the research pointed out what they saw as serious shortcomings. In particular, to avoid confusing establishments that were subject to the minimum with those that were not, the authors did not include large employers with locations both inside and outside of Seattle in their calculations. Skeptics argued that omission could explain the unusual results.

The article clearly demonstrates how economics is currently practiced. Essentially, economists are no more than statisticians who use data to back up preferable policy objectives. They do not explain how people create and exchange scarce resources so much as come up with equations and relationships that rationalize what they think government policy ought to be.

In comparison, Austrian School economists seek to understand how people act in the as value-free a manner as possible. While they may have their own opinions about what government policy ought to be, the Austrian School seeks to understand how people actually behave. It is through this process that one can understand, without the need of economic data, the harmful effects raising the minimum wage would have on the working poor.

While it is encouraging to see a statistical study come to the same conclusion, do not expect liberal economists to change their mind on the matter anytime soon.

After Alexandria, fairy tales are still more important than facts to MSM

Yesterday, James T. Hodgkinson, a Bernie Sanders supporter, almost committed a massacre by shooting at Republican congressmen and staff at a baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia. Fortunately, Capitol police prevented the massacre by killing him.

One would think it is reasonable to evaluate whether the toxic political environment had anything to do with encouraging leftists such as Hodkinson from taking violent action against Republicans. Must we remind ourselves of the Kathy Griffin beheading “art”, Snoop Dog assassinating Trump in a rap video, and Madonna dreaming about burning down the White House?

Alas, it appears that for the mainstream media, it is far more important to maintain the fairy tales in their minds than to understand the facts for what they are.

In the interest of brevity and sanity, I will focus only on three examples of the mainstream media pursuing herculean efforts to maintain their narrative. At least what’s left of it.

MSNBC

First, let us turn to MSNBC counter-terrorism analyst Malcom Nance, who attempted to turn the shooting into a gun control issue.

“The most important thing we need to understand from this is this is what happens when you have an over proliferation of guns,” Nance told Brian Williams, “and it is to be expected to a certain extent.”

There are two obvious problems with Nance’s argument. First, as I’ve mentioned before, but for the Capitol police shooting Hodgkinson, the situation could have been far, far worse. Second, Nance has personally contributed to the toxic political environment when he tweeted that should ISIS should send a suicide bomber to a Trump property in Istanbul.

That tweet alone should disqualify Nance from commenting on political violence in the US.

Washington Post

Next, we turn to an opinion piece written by Stephen Stromberg in the Washington Post, in which he attempts to use content-free rhetoric to paper over a clearly partisan attack.

Headlines are calling it the “GOP baseball shooting.” But when James T. Hodgkinson III opened fire Wednesday morning on Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and a group of other GOP members of Congress, he was not just attacking Republicans. He was attacking the republic.

Early reports suggest partisanship may have motivated Hodgkinson. He apparently campaigned for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and hated the way Republicans have been running the government. These are not remarkable characteristics. What made Hodgkinson different from thousands of other Americans was his apparent conclusion that his feelings justified a treasonous assault on the legislative branch of the federal government. This deranged conviction seemingly led Hodgkinson to turn his back on civilized society and embrace the cruel barbarism of force.

More than perhaps any other institution in the country, the legislature represents the notion that

Ok, I’m just going to stop right there. He is clearly attempting to portray Hodgkinson’s shooting as an attack on the legislature, and using high-falootin’ rhetoric to do it. However, eyewitness accounts clearly indicate that he wanted to attack Republicans.

A GOP lawmaker said Wednesday that the alleged gunman in a shooting at a congressional baseball practice that wounded five asked whether “Republicans or Democrats” were on the field shortly before the attack in Virginia.

Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., told CNBC that a man came up to him and Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., at the practice and asked if the players on the field were Republicans or Democrats.

“We both agreed that that individual who came up to us and asked if it was Republicans or Democrats … is the same individual police have identified,” DeSantis said. “That picture is the same guy that we saw.”

The man approached him and Duncan in their car and asked who was playing, and Duncan responded that they were Republicans, DeSantis said.

“We both kind of shrugged it off, by the time we got back to the Hill when news broke we immediately called each other and said that guy was … we’ve got to report that,” he said.

It is simply irresponsible for Stromberg to ignore a central fact and attempt to whitewash a clearly political attack against a particular political party. What makes this all the more galling is that he is attempting to do so in one of the nation’s leading newspapers.

I mean, if one didn’t know any better, it’s almost as if the Washington Post had an agenda or something.

New York Times

Now we save the best, or worst, for last.

Simply put, the New York Times published one of the slimiest editorials that I can recall reading. It accomplished the never-never land trifecta of insisting on moral equivalency on the flimsiest of circumstances, arguing that gun control is still relevant, all while maintaining the air that liberals still hold the principled high ground.

No wonder Paul Krugman writes for them.

I will address each of my charges in turn.

Moral equivalency

The editorial attempts to make a parallel between the Alexandria shooting and the shooting of Gabby Giffords in 2011.

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. But no connection to that crime was ever established.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Liberals should of course be held to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.

There are two rather obvious objections to these two paragraphs.

First, if Palin’s map had nothing to do with Jared Lee Loughner’s attack, what is the point of the bringing it up? The only reason would be to somehow show an equivalence between the attacks, when none can be made.

In fact, the editorial board of a major American newspaper was so intent on demonstrating that link, it overstepped its bounds, resulting in the following correction:

Correction: June 15, 2017
An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

Second, to what liberal standard of decency are you referring? The left’s rhetoric during and after the election has been nothing but personal and virtiolic. To characterize the liberals’ need to be accountable in the same manner they hold the right accountable is downright laughable.

Gun control

The editorial also argues that the shooting somehow demonstrates the need for gun control.

Was this attack evidence of how readily available guns and ammunition are in the United States? Indisputably. Mr. Hodgkinson, by definition, should not have had a gun, but he was licensed in his home state, Illinois. And in any event it would have been easy for him to acquire a weapon in Virginia, which requires no background checks in private sales, requires no registration for most weapons and has few restrictions on open carry.

It’s pathetic how flimsily the New York Times constructed this strawman.

Let’s put aside the fact that someone had to shoot Hodgkinson and Loughner to prevent their respective attacks from being worse than they actually were.

Every human being has a natural right to protect themselves. If someone believes that carrying a concealed weapon would provide that protection, so be it. If someone were to harm someone else with that weapon, intentionally or not, that person should be held accountable through the law. Otherwise, the second amendment simply codifies the natural right each and every American has.

However, the New York Times attempts to portray that natural right as some nefarious attempt by gun lobbyists to increase sales. Such a strawman may work on idiot liberals who don’t know how to think for themselves. However, it doesn’t stand under reasonable scrutiny.

What moral high ground?

Finally, the tone of the editorial is that in which the editorial board attempts to demonstrate that the left still has the moral high ground. Hence, its nods to liberal standards of decency.

However, one can make a reasonable assumption that the Times knows that the Alexandria attack shatters any illusions the left may have about the ground on which it stands.

In short, the left knows they are in hot water. They just don’t know how to spin this yet. And unfortunately, they seem to be more interested in maintaining the narrative than constructing a dialogue.

Conclusion

If Hodgkinson ends up being the only one who dies from the Alexandria shooting, we should count ourselves incredibly fortunate. Now would be an excellent time for everyone to slow down, and do some soul searching.

The rhetoric has been running too hot for too long. In fact, there have been suggestions that we have been building towards a civil war in the US, and I can’t say that those suggestions are wrong.

Nevertheless, we have an opportunity to slow down and evaluate how we have been communicating.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, it does not appear that the mainstream media will be assisting us in this necessary exercise.

Anger over new gas tax gives California Republicans a chance for revival

While Ronald Reagan was a governor of California before becoming President, the Republican party has been a weak political minority here for decades. The last time Republicans won the Golden State during a presidential election was in 1988. However, public anger over new gas taxes may give the GOP an opportunity to increase its presence in the state.

As John Meyers of the Los Angeles Times reports:

Less than seven weeks ago, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a sweeping $5.2-billion package of proposals to fix California’s roads and highways. To pay for it, the base excise tax on gas goes up by 12 cents a gallon in November. Diesel fuel taxes will rise by 20 cents a gallon.

There’s also a new annual vehicle fee the DMV will charge to help fund the transportation projects, based on a vehicle’s value and ranging from $25 to $175. Brown has made a frequent point of defending the necessity of the transportation plan, which won a supermajority vote in both legislative houses and earned the support of business and transportation groups.

While Governor Brown may have convinced the Democrat-controlled California legislature over these additional taxes, he doesn’t appear to have convinced taxpayers. And therein lies the opportunity for the Republicans.

Californians hate bad roads. But they may hate taxes even more. In a new statewide poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, 58% of voters surveyed said they oppose the tax-and-spend transportation plan.

The California GOP is making two moves against the gax taxes. First, they have organized a recall effort against Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), a freshman legislator who voted for the tax increase. Second, Assemblyman Travis Allen (R-Huntington Beach) is seeking an initiative to repeal the tax increases.

This initiative could alter significantly the 2018 state elections if it makes the ballot.

It could force Democrats in battleground legislative races to defend the tax. The California Democratic Party might have to open up its sizable war chest. Perhaps even Brown, by then on the homestretch of his political career and facing questions about his legacy, would dip into his $15 million campaign bank account for the transportation plan he helped craft.

Even vulnerable GOP members of Congress might benefit, giving them something other than President Trump to talk about. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy recently suggested that the unpopular gas tax could fuel strong Republican turnout next year.

Strong Republican turnout could be strong for no other reason than to punish Governor Brown for his calling Republicans “freeloaders” during the gas tax debate. While Republicans aren’t anarcho-capitalists, the vast majority of them vote for the GOP because they don’t want the government to burden entreprenuers.

While it’s too soon to tell how the 2018 election will play out, at the very least the prospect of a gas tax repeal initiative ought to put state Democrats on the defensive.

Given how active – and destructive – the Democrats have been in the state, that can be nothing but a good thing.

 

California Senate passes single-payer health care bill

The level of dumbassery in California politics knows no bounds.

By a vote of 23 to 14 (with three abstentions), the California Senate passed a bill that would set up a single-payer health care in the state.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

Lara’s bill would provide a Medicare-for-all-type system that he believed would guarantee health coverage for all Californians without the out-of-pocket costs. Under a single-payer plan, the government replaces private insurance companies, paying doctors and hospitals for healthcare.

There’s only one minor problem with the bill.

No one knows how the hell to pay for it.

Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), one of the key sponsors of the bill, admits that the bill will have to be “further developed”, and he hopes that a consensus will emerge on how to pay for it.

Lara proposed the bill while President Trump and Congressional Republicans are working to repeal and replace Obamacare.

“Despite the incredible progress California has made, millions still do not have access to health insurance and millions more cannot afford the high deductibles and co-pays, and they often forgo care,” Lara said during a floor debate on the bill.

In other words, the bill is virtue signaling writ large.

The Times has analyzed the various ways single-payer health care could be financed; none of the options look pretty. While a portion of the funds could come from existing federal and state sources such as Medicare and Medi-cal, it would require additional taxation. Among the tax proposals include a 2.3% business receipts tax and an additional 2.3% sales tax, or a 15% payroll tax.

Health Care

Such massive taxes would supposedly pay for a program that is twice the size of the current state budget.

“We don’t have the money to pay for it,” Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto) said. “If we cut every single program and expense from the state budget and redirected that money to this bill, SB 562, we wouldn’t even cover half of the $400-billion price tag.”

Fortunately, even if the state Assembly were to pass the bill, there are several significant roadblocks preventing the bill from being implemented.

Even if the bill is approved, it has to go to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has been skeptical, and then voters would have to exempt it from spending limits and budget formulas in the state Constitution. In addition, the state would have to get federal approval to repurpose existing funds for Medicare and Medicaid.

Nevertheless, such impediments should not discount the reckelessness with which Democratic leaders are pursuing this bill. State finances are fragile enough as they are, given the state’s huge debt load and weak pension plans for teachers and other government employees.

However, such a bill would truly take the state down the road to Venezuela. The fact that state leaders are even considering such a brazen move simply shows how out of touch they are.

Fortunately, a backlash is beginning to brew within the state. I’ll address that in an upcoming post.

 

 

Mises on Nationalism and Immigration

Tom Woods recently had Joseph Solerno on his podcast to talk about his essay entitled “Mises on Nationalism, the Right of Self-Determination, and the Problem of Immigration”.

This is an extremely timely article. Mises’s views on nationalism and immigration are well-reasoned, nuanced, and premised on the flourishing of individual rights. As much as I would like to summarize it, I’m still digesting it.

I encourage everyone to read the whole thing.