Clinton Calls for Middle Class Tax Increases

It's amazing how little attention is given to Hillary Clinton's tax plans for America.  She wants to raise taxes on the wealthy; that's not new.  What is unusual is that Clinton wants to raise taxes on the middle class too.  Frequently, the Democrats do just that, but it is unusual for that party to admit its plans to do so.

Here is Clinton telling a rally in Nebraska yesterday that she wants a big middle class tax increase.

It's interesting to note that Clinton could not fill a highschool gym in Nebraska for this rally.  The press is filled with reports that many of the people at the rally were paid by the campaign to attend.

There are few things that could hurt our economy more than raising taxes on the middle class.  That group is already squeezed.  Taking more from them in taxes will surely drive down consumption which is one of the few bright spots in our current economy.

Paying the Barbary Pirates

Back when the USA was a new country, ships flying the American flag were frequently attacked by a group called the "Barbary Pirates".  These pirates were home-based along the Barbary Coast in what today is Libya.  The pirates routinely stopped and seized ships and their cargoes, and then they held the crews for ransom.  Many countries made arrangements with the pirates so that their ships and crews could be protected from attack, and the subject of such "tribute" as it was called arose in the USA.  In debating the subject, a senator from Maryland came up with the formulation that has been the watch word of the USA ever since (or at least that's what we thought); he said, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."  In other words, the USA would pay whatever was needed to defend itself, but it would not pay ransom or make payoffs out of fear.  Not long after that debate, the US Marines landed in Tripoli and attacked the Barbary Pirates and their attacks on American shipping came to an end.  (That's where the "shores of Tripoli" comes from in the Marine Hymn.)

Today we learned that president Obama abandoned that time honored strategy.  He had the USA pay a $400 million ransom to Iran for the release of the four hostages that Iran was holding at the time of the nuclear deal.  Even worse, Obama hid both the fact of the ransom payment and its amount from the American people and from Congress.  It's a disgrace.  It's also extremely foolish; it won't end Iran's misconduct to pay it off this way.  Indeed, since the payment, Iran has just arrested other Americans so that it has hostages to replace those who were released.

Obama is truly a disgrace.

Why Can't We Have an HONEST Governement?

My local paper has a large article today detailing the ongoing investigation of Connecticut's governor Dan Malloy.  Malloy is suspected of having worked with the state Democrat party to violate campaign finance laws in his 2014 re-election campaign.  It's not worth going through all the details that have leaked from the grand jury, US Attorney or elsewhere.  In summary, it seems that the investigation centers on whether or not Malloy illegally took nearly half a million dollars from the Democrat party for his campaign after first taking public funds which made private funding illegal.

Why is it that we can't have honest government?  How hard is it for the governor to actually obey the law? 

On top of that, does anyone else see the irony of Malloy and the Democrats allegedly funneling campaign cash when the Democrats are constantly complaining about the need for campaign finance reform.  In ultra liberal Connecticut, the preferred liberal remedy of public finance for campaigns gets enacted, and now we hear that the Democrats and their candidate allegedly shoveled mega-bucks into their campaign in violation of the law. 

A New American War -- Libya

Remember August 1, 2016.  It's the day that the USA started military action in Libya.  American planes bombed ISIS targets in the coastal city of Sirte.  The attack was coordinated with ground forces allied with the Libyan "government".  According to reports, a great many ISIS fighters were killed.

That's the news, but let's take a moment to think about what it means.

1.  This is the start of ongoing fighting in Libya by US forces.  Our planes attacked in coordination with the ground forces.  That makes rather clear that this is the start of a longer term collaboration.  Simply put, we now have a new front (Libya) in the war on terrorism.

2.  This new fighting has not been authorized by Congress.  In fact, there is no Congressional authority for the fight against ISIS.  President Obama made that clear when he submitted an Authorization for the Use of Military Force for passage by Congress two years ago.  It never passed; neither house of Congress even brought it up for a vote.  Nevertheless, the fighting continues.  The Administration says that it has the authority to continue with the fight under the terms of the anti-terrorism AUMF passed after 9-11, but there are two problems with that view:  a) ISIS did not exist until some ten years after the passage of the first AUMF; Congress obviously was not authorizing the use of force against ISIS; and b) if the first AUMF authorized the fight against ISIS, then why did Obama propose a second one?

3.  ISIS is still gaining strength.  In between terror attacks in Europe and here at home, Obama keeps saying things like "ISIS is contained" or "we are winning the fight".  The problem with those claims, however, is that they are not true.  ISIS has now gotten so strong in Libya that the US forces are getting involved in battling them there.  That is a sign of ISIS strength, not weakness.

4.  There still does not seem to be any coherent strategy by Obama to defeat ISIS.  In Iraq, we have seen the biggest gains against the terrorists with the recapture of some cities.  Still, ISIS holds Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq.  Even worse, Iran has forces in Iraq that are nearly twenty times larger than the USA has.  If we succeed in driving ISIS from Iraq, it may be just to leave Iraq as a vassal of Iran.  That will do little to end terrorism.  It will just shift the principal actors.

Do The Crowds Matter?

Do crowds matter?  Yesterday, Hillary Clinton cancelled a rally that she and Tim Kaine were supposed to be holding in Cleveland, Ohio.  She did speak, however, at a predominantly African American church.  NBC News published this picture of the event:

    

The point to notice is that there are many empty seats.  Hillary couldn't draw a full house at a church where she has heavy support.

 

Meanwhile today, Donald Trump held a rally at the Columbus, Ohio convention center.  Thousands of people were turned away according to news stories.  To be fair, one reason so many were turned away is that the local fire marshall decided to close the doors at a certain point when the hall was not yet full.  Still, Trump clearly got a much bigger reception in Ohio than Hillary.

 

Does that difference in crowd size matter?  The ambiguous answer is that it may.  One of the biggest problems for Hillary Clinton with the African American community is not getting their support, but rather getting them to come out to vote.  For decades, white voters across America voted at higher rates than blacks; then came 2008 and 2012.  In those two elections, blacks came to the polls in record numbers and at a higher rate than whites.  If turnout rates go back to pre-Obama levels, Hillary Clinton could lose two or three percent of the vote as a result.  In a close election, that could flip the outcome.  The lackluster turnout for Hillary in Ohio shows that there's no enthusiasm for her.  On the other side, Trump keeps getting big crowds and that may indicate great enthusiasm for him come November.  If Trump can just increase turnout by 3%, he may be able to win going away, particularly if that is combined with Hillary's nomination depressing the black vote.

 

I realize that this is reading way too much into a few crowd pictures and stories.  Still, it is really unusual for the nominee of a major party having trouble filling a rally with supporters.  We will have to wait and see if the enthusiasm gap continues.

Saying and Doing

Once again, we have one of those saying vs doing moments.  Donald Trump is accused of insulting the mother of a man who gave his life for this country because Trump pointed out that she said nothing while her husband spoke at the Democrat convention.  I don't see that as an insult, but the media and the usual suspects are going wild about it.

On the other hand, we have Hillary Clinton who (1) did nothing to protect our consulate in Benghazi despite repeated pleas from the Ambassador for more security, (2) did nothing to prepared State Department installations around the world to deal with possible problems on the anniversary of 9-11, (3) sent no help to those under attack but instead went home and went to sleep while the attacks on Benghazi were still underway, and (4) lied about what had happened to help her and president Obama politically. 

Since it seems to make such a difference to the media to hear this from a family member of one of the fallen, here's a short statement you should watch:

 

The Mary McCarthy Moment

Decades ago, writer Mary McCarthy famously said of Lillian Hellman, "every word [Hellman] writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'.".  I was reminded of that quote yesterday as I watched Hillary Clinton being interviewed on Fox News Sunday.  It was as if Hillary just couldn't help herself.  We heard lie after lie after lie.  The most amazing one was Hillary's take on what FBI director Comey said about her emails.  According to Hillary, Comey said that she had told the truth.  Chris Wallace then played for Hillary video of Comey saying over and over that Hillary had lied about the email issues.  Hillary's stood by her claim that Comey had cleared her.  It was bizarre, to put it mildly.

Wallace also asked Hillary about what Pat Smith (mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith) had said at the RNC. Smith said that Hillary had spoken to her when Sean's body was returned from Libya and Hillary had said that the attack was the result of a youtube video not a terrorist attack.  Clinton's response was to say that Smith was mistaken even though some family members of other Benghazi victims also report that Hillary had told them the same thing.  When Wallace asked why would these family members lie, Hillary just repeated that they were mistaken.  Wallace then played video of Hillary at that ceremony talking about the attacks being the result of a youtube video.  Hillary said that she had already announced that it had been a terror attack.  Of course, that is not true.  Indeed, two days later, the Administration sent Susan Rice onto five Sunday morning shows to repeat that Benghazi was the result of the youtube video and not a terror attack.

There were more lies, but the two listed above in which Hillary continued to lie in the face of video that proved she was being dishonest were extraordinary.  The reality is that every word that Hillary Clinton says is a lie including "and" and "the".