Sanders, Warren, other Democrat Senators call on US to give Palestinian Authority and Hamas $75 million

As the economic crisis created by the coronavirus deepens, it is astounding that these Senators think this is a good use of the taxpayers’ money. Once this money arrived in the PA and Gaza, it would be used almost exclusively to line the pockets of various officials and to pay expenses related to the ongoing jihad against Israel.

“As Americans go Broke, Sanders Demands Taxpayers Give Hamas $75 Million,” by Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz, Breaking Israel News, March 29, 2020 (thanks to the Geller Report):

A group of Democratic senators called for the U.S. State Department to reverse its policy and give funding to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

Democratic Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tom Carper (D-DE), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requesting that the government reverse its policy and resume giving monetary aid to the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria and the Hamas-led government in Gaza.

“Given the spread of the coronavirus in the West Bank and Gaza, the extreme vulnerability of the health system in Gaza, and the continued withholding of U.S. aid to the Palestinian people, we are concerned that the Administration is failing to take every reasonable step to help combat this public health emergency in the Palestinian Territories,” the letter read.

The Democratic politicians seek to squeeze $75 million in aid to the Hamas-led government in Gaza and the PA in Judea and Samaria under the guise of the FY 2020 Appropriations Act.

It should be noted that President Trump slashed funding to the PA in 2018 as per the Taylor Force Act, also known as the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA), that cuts some aid to the Palestinians until they end stipends to terrorists and the families of slain attackers.

In 2016, the PA paid out about $303 million in stipends and other benefits to the families of so-called “martyrs”. The funds are disbursed by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO/Fatah). The families of convicted Palestinians serving time in Israeli prisons receive $3,000 or higher per month, higher than the average Palestinian wage.

Any monies that go to Gaza must necessarily go through the government which is run by Hamas. Hamas, recognized by the U.S. as a terrorist organization, was elected as the ruling party in Gaza in 2006. Gaza receives billions of dollars of humanitarian aid, much of which is usurped by the Hamas government for use in terrorist infrastructures….

RELATED ARTICLES:

NYC Mayor de Blasio threatens to shut down churches and synagogues permanently, makes no mention of mosques

Amid coronavirus pandemic, Erdogan withdraws his migrant army from Greek border — for now

Pakistan: Muslim cricketer set to make comeback despite offering reward for murder of “blasphemer” Geert Wilders

Australia: Hijabbed Muslima repeatedly coughs and spits on cop, says she was on her way for coronavirus test

Philadelphia: Imam says “We don’t want any progressive Islam….We do not support or advocate for ‘modern Islam’”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Little of Pelosi’s Wish List Made It Into COVID-19 Relief Bill. That’s a Relief in Itself.

On Friday, the House passed the massive $2 trillion-plus coronavirus relief package that the Senate had passed on Wednesday.

There’s a lot in those 880 pages, and much of it is problematic: The bill is neither targeted and temporary, nor directed exclusively at the coronavirus—as scholars at The Heritage Foundation and its president, Kay C. James, have explained.

Before the bill made it through the Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., temporarily derailed it by insisting that any relief bill include a left-wing wish list unrelated to the ongoing pandemic and the economic slowdown that it’s causing.

Among other things, Pelosi would have:


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


  • Mandated “diversity” on corporate boards and in banks.
  • Required airlines to disclose and reduce emissions.
  • Mandated that states allow voting by mail.
  • Increased union bargaining power.
  • Expanded tax credits for wind and solar power.
  • Prohibited universities from disclosing the citizenship status of their students.
  • Provided a bailout for some private pensions.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Pelosi was not going to be accused of letting a crisis go to waste.

In what is becoming a familiar theme (think of her failed attempt to control how the Senate conducted its impeachment trial), Pelosi backed down shortly after making her demands.

With the legislation now through Congress, how much of Pelosi’s wish list made it into the bill?

None of the wish-list items listed above made the cut, but there remains a lot of unnecessary and unwise spending in it.

Diversity requirements for banks and corporate boards are out, as is Pelosi’s demand for a Securities and Exchange Commission advisory group to promote corporate “diversity.”

Also out is her demand that companies taking relief funds establish and staff a minimum five-year “diversity and inclusion” program. Indeed, the words “diversity” and “inclusion” don’t appear in the legislation passed by the Senate.

The package also does not include any new carbon emissions restrictions or disclosure requirements for airlines or other industries.

Similarly missing are any of her proposals for a federal takeover of state elections.

Her attempt to give unions a handout failed, too, as did her attempt to give a handout to wind and solar power providers.

The bill does not prevent colleges and universities from disclosing their students who are illegal aliens, or provide any other shroud for illegal status.

Likewise, the private pension bailouts she demanded are nowhere to be found in the Senate bill.

Pelosi succeeded in delaying the relief package by several days, but she failed to capitalize on what her No. 2 lieutenant, Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., called a “tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.”

Still, Pelosi took to Twitter to celebrate her success in turning the Senate Republicans’ bill “upside down.”

In the end, Pelosi supported the bill wholeheartedly.

But despite her self-proclaimed success in turning the Senate bill upside down, progressives in her party are not happy with it.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., thinks that the relief package favors the businesses that employ the vast majority of Americans. She had threatened to delay the bill’s passage.

Even before this relief package becomes law, politicians on both sides of the aisle were already calling for another one to follow, so expect Pelosi and the progressives to try again to make the wishes on their wish list come true.

COMMENTARY BY

GianCarlo Canaparo is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

It’s Fine to Talk About How This Crisis Ends

Trump Compels GM to Build More Ventilators for Coronavirus Response

Latest UN Report Forecasts Grave Economic Consequences From COVID-19 Shutdowns

South Korea Provides Lessons, Good and Bad, on Coronavirus Response


A Note for our Readers

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

America Needs a Formula for Reopening

This week, President Donald Trump began openly considering at what point the American government ought to take steps to reopen the American economy.

He explained: “Our country wasn’t built to be shut down. America will again and soon be open for business,” suggesting that the timeline will be weeks instead of months.

“If it were up to the doctors,” Trump said, “they’d say, ‘Let’s shut down the entire world.’ This could create a much bigger problem than the problem that you started with.”

Later, Trump optimistically proclaimed that he “would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter.”


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


Trump’s projections drew fire—as do all of his statements. These statements, however, caused inordinate faux heartburn among commentators, who shouted that Trump was weighing dollars against lives and deciding in favor of dollars.

The hashtag #NotDyingForWallStreet began trending on Twitter, followed by the hashtag #DieForTheDow.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo tweeted: “My mother is not expendable. Your mother is not expendable. We will not put a dollar figure on human life. … No one should be talking about social darwinism for the sake of the stock market.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden said, “I don’t agree with the notion that somehow it’s OK … to let people die.”

That, of course, was not Trump’s suggestion. Trump was merely pointing out—quite correctly—that since the federal government has now taken the unprecedented and justifiable action of completely shutting down the American economy, to the tune of millions of lost jobs and the greatest quarterly economic decline in recorded history, we must also have a plan to end this situation.

The economy cannot remain shuttered indefinitely; the federal government cannot engage in endless cash expenditures on the basis of treasuries nobody is buying. Nor is the economy merely Wall Street. The vast majority of those who will lose their jobs are not day traders but workers. Small companies are more likely to go under than large ones.

The economy isn’t an abstraction. It’s the real lives of hundreds of millions of American citizens, and costs to those Americans must be weighed in the balance.

That’s not controversial. That’s a simple fact. Public policy is the craft of weighing risks and rewards, and policymakers do it every day. It’s just that this time, the stakes are the highest they have ever been.

So, when do we reopen, and how?

The biggest problem is that we lack the data to answer the question.

How many lives will be lost if we take heavy social measures after how many weeks? Moderate social measures? What will be the concomitant economic gain or loss? How many additional ICU beds and ventilators will we need to make available in order to clear the flattened curve such that we do not experience excess deaths due to lack of equipment, a la Italy?

Our goal should be to move from the Chinese model—total lockdown—to the South Korean model—heavy testing, contact investigations, and social distancing. In order to accomplish that, we need to flatten the curve and stop the spread, allowing us to reset. How long will that take?

We’re not going to have answers until some time passes—until we test more, until the outcomes of cases are made certain. But we can certainly construct the formulas that should allow us to calculate possible outcomes as new data comes in, and that should allow us to collectively commit to actions directed at certain outcomes.

We require a formula from the government. That’s the transparency the markets need, that the American people need. And that, at least, should be attainable over the next two weeks.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Ben Shapiro is host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is The New York Times best-selling author of “Bullies.” He is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, and lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Wisdom of Trump’s 15 Days to Slow Spread of COVID-19

After Last Pandemic, Task Force Advised Obama to Avert Shortage of Masks

What Michigan and Ohio Are Doing to Respond to COVID-19

Trump Compares $2.2 Trillion Coronavirus Aid Bill With New Deal in Size, Scope

Problematic Women: Love, Sex, and COVID-19


This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Senate Democrats Again Block Coronavirus Stimulus Bill Over Desired Additions

RELATED VIDEO: Senator Ted Cruz breaks down coronavirus numbers.


The final shape of the Senate’s bill to limit the economic fallout of the coronavirus remains in doubt as Democrats, for the second straight day, blocked passage of the aid package because they want to spend more.

While President Donald Trump waited to sign some sort of “stimulus” bill into law, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed to include provisions of  Democrats’ Green New Deal proposal as well as other wish-list items.

Shortly after noon Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had harsh words for Democrats’ insistence on tax credits for solar and wind energy initiatives and on tougher fuel emission standards.

“Democrats won’t let us fund hospitals and save small businesses unless they get the dust off the Green New Deal,” McConnell said, adding in an apparent dig at Schumer, D-N.Y.:


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


I’d like to see Senate Democrats tell NYC doctors and nurses, who are literally overrun as we speak, that they’re filibustering hospital funding and more masks because they want to argue with the airlines over their carbon footprint.

The “stimulus” legislation, which requires the votes of 60 senators to advance, mustered only votes of 49-46 Monday.

Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, but at least three GOP senators apparently won’t be able to vote: Rand Paul of Kentucky tested positive for coronavirus and Mike Lee and Mitt Romney, both of Utah, have self-quarantined because of close contact with Paul.

Two other Senate Republicans, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Rick Scott of Florida, also reportedly self-quarantined  because of potential exposure to the coronavirus.

Pelosi, D-Calif., said Sunday that House Democrats would come up with their own bill.

“It’s on the Senate side because that’s their deadline for a vote,” Pelosi said of Monday’s action. “We’ll be introducing our own bill, and hopefully it will be compatible.”

Pelosi unveiled a coronavirus stimulus package Monday that she said includes calling on Trump “to abandon his lawsuit seeking to strike down the Affordable Care Act.”

The House speaker’s attempt to use the stimulus package to secure liberals’ own priorities frustrated Republicans, many of whom took to Twitter to voice their perspectives.

Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., chairman of the Republican Study Committee, tweeted before the Senate vote that House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., had said the coronavirus package is “a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.”

Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., tweeted: “Republicans & Democrats in the Senate negotiated a bipartisan deal which includes $75 billion for hospitals & $186 billion for state & local governments. @SpeakerPelosi & @SenSchumer need to stop blocking critically needed funding that will provide relief & keep Americans WORKING.”

“Let’s be clear about what’s happening right now,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., tweeted late Sunday night. “We had a bipartisan deal to deliver critical relief to hardworking families until Nancy Pelosi blew it up so she could play politics.”

“Enough already!” Scalise said in the tweet. “We’re in the middle of a national emergency. Drop the partisan demands.”

Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., tweeted Monday: “There was no need for this to be delayed–sadly @SpeakerPelosi and @SenSchumer hijacked the bipartisan negotiations. We’re covering small business & workers with liquidity & larger businesses with loans – not bailouts or grants – so they can pay their employees. This is urgent.”

The Senate’s aid package, released Thursday by Republicans, would cost about $2 trillion and give monetary relief to airlines and other industries slammed by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as send checks to many Americans.

Among other provisions, couples who make up to $150,000 a year would get checks for $2,400 in the mail and individuals earning up to $75,000 would get checks for $1,200.

Heritage Foundation President Kay C. James said in a formal statement Sunday that the Senate legislation in its current form was economically irresponsible.

“Like everyone, we are deeply concerned for our families, our neighbors, our friends, and the businesses we depend on. We also are concerned by many of the provisions in the CARES Act,” James said, adding:

Legislation to keep workers connected to employers, provide stability for businesses caught in this uncertainty, and mitigate the overall economic effects of this crisis is necessary. To best accomplish these goals, legislation must be targeted, temporary, and directed exclusively at the coronavirus. This bill does not pass those tests.

Generous bailouts for businesses and extremely broad federal assistance programs won’t best help those hit hardest or get our economy back up and running when the time comes. They’ll do what Washington programs often do: hurt the American people through unintended consequences while enriching a select few.

The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.

COLUMN BY

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a congressional reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.

RELATED ARTICLES:

13 Key Things to Know About the Senate’s Giant Coronavirus Bill

Trump Signs Executive Order to Prevent Price Gouging During Coronavirus Crisis

What a Congressman and Physician Has to Say About the Pandemic

EXCLUSIVE: How VA Is Prepared to Handle Rising Rates of Veterans With Coronavirus

Nurturing and Improving Telehealth in the Time of Coronavirus

What We Know About Potential Treatments for COVID-19

RELATED VIDEO: Tucker Carlson: Democrats Holding Up Coronavirus Relief Putting ‘Wokeness’ Over The American People


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Senate Bill Would Give $1,200 to Many Americans as COVID-19 Relief

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday that the Senate will not leave Washington before approving an aid package to ease financial problems during the coronavirus pandemic through direct payments to individual Americans.

Other provisions of the package, which has a total cost estimated at up to $1 trillion, would provide loans to airlines and other struggling industries.

Under the proposal, couples earning up to $150,000 a year would get checks for $2,400 in the mail and individuals earning up to $75,000 would get $1,200 checks.

After reaching those income thresholds, relief would scale downward to as low as $600 for some Americans.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


Individuals earning more than $99,000 a year and couples earning more than $198,000 would not get anything from the government under the current bill.

The Democrat-controlled House would have to pass a version of the bill. The Trump administration already has signaled support for many of the initiatives.

“Senate Republicans want to put cash into the hands of the American people,” McConnell said in a Senate floor speech.

McConnell said the goal of the bill—called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act—is to “get assistance to individuals and families as rapidly as possible.”

“No tangled Washington process with a thousand cooks in the kitchen, no piles of forms for laid-off workers or busy families to fill out,” the top Senate Republican said. “Money for people, from the middle class on down.”

The bill also includes a $500 payment for each child in a household, depending on family income.

This stage marks “phase three” of economic relief packages during the coronavirus pandemic that have gained bipartisan support in Congress.

Congress passed an initial $830 billion relief package in early March focused on medical and emergency relief.

On Wednesday, Trump signed another, $100 billion bill that includes unemployment benefits and free testing for the new coronavirus disease, which health officials call COVID-19.

The proposed CARES Act includes direct payments to Americans, as well as delays in employer payroll taxes and estimated tax payments for businesses.

The proposal also would provide $208 billion in loan guarantees, including $50 billion for the airline industry and $8 billion for air cargo carriers.

The total confirmed U.S. cases of COVID-19 reached 10,442 as of noon Thursday, with 150 confirmed deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some conservatives, including Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, showed reluctance to support too much spending or large bailouts for industries.

McConnell likely will need support from Democrats to pass the legislation.

In a joint statement from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., the Democrats made other demands. It said, in part:

The number one priority is addressing this health crisis, which requires a Marshall Plan to rebuild our health care infrastructure on a continental scale and ensure the resources are there to test and treat everyone who needs it. To earn Democratic support in the Congress, any economic stimulus proposal must include new, strong and strict provisions that prioritize and protect workers, such as banning the recipient companies from buying back stock, rewarding executives and laying off workers.

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Clears Way to Use Malaria Drug Against COVID-19

Coronavirus Exposes How West Coast Progressives Failed the Homeless

New State Department Warning Shows Travel Restrictions Key to Curbing Coronavirus

Coronavirus Aid for Travel Industry: Prepayments, Tax Relief, Not Bailouts

Ukraine’s Coronavirus Lockdown Invokes Memories of Life in the Soviet Union


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Trump Quarantines Abortion Money in Virus Bill

While lots of Americans are hunkered down at home, the U.S. Senate is holed up in its offices — waiting for a crack at the House’s coronavirus bill. And while there’s a lot of uncertainty about what’s actually in the package, Republican leaders won’t have to contend with at least one thing: abortion funding.

The version that passed Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) chamber in the wee hours of Saturday morning wasn’t what the House majority was hoping for. After word leaked out that Democrats had tried to tack on a secret slush fund for abortion, even MSNBC couldn’t hide its shock. “What does that have to do with COVID-19?” host Joy Reid asked. What indeed, Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebr.) argued. With schools closing and most every gathering postponed, he couldn’t believe that Pelosi’s priority was getting more money in the hands of people who take life, not treat it. “Speaker Pelosi should be fighting the coronavirus pandemic, not politicizing emergency funding by fighting against the bipartisan Hyde Amendment,” he insisted. “We need to be ramping up our diagnostic testing, not waging culture wars at the behest of Planned Parenthood. Good grief.”

When the White House got wind of the Democrats’ plan, President Trump wasted no time warning House leaders what would happen to the bill if it got to him with that language: Absolutely nothing. Keeping a promise he made at the March for Life in 2019, the administration made it crystal clear that he wouldn’t allow Pelosi to hijack the crisis with her radical plans to overthrow the Hyde amendment. Emergency or no emergency. “As the House conducts its business,” the president wrote in a shot across the bow last January, “I urge that it respect and continue these other important pro-life protections… I will veto any legislation that weakens current pro-life federal policies or laws — or that encourages the destruction of innocent human life at any stage.”

The pressure worked. By the time the House voted, the language that would have compromised the Hyde amendment was gone. In an interview on “Washington Watch” last Friday, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) cheered the administration’s stand but warned that Congress still isn’t out of the woods yet. “They removed the anti-Hyde amendment provision. So we got that back and protected the unborn, at least… [But] we have to be vigilant — that’s for sure… [There are] provisions that have nothing to do with the coronavirus basically being thrown into this thing. And that’s just par for the course for the activist Left.”

Like a lot of Republicans, he also urged caution on a bill of this magnitude. “It’s a far-reaching and expansive and bill on spending,” Congressman Biggs explained, and although both chambers are doing their best to work quickly, there are still very serious legislative landmines. “Panic is no friend to sound policymaking,” NRO pointed out. As important as it is to combat the virus, it’s just as important to make sure America isn’t ravaged by Congress’s solutions. Right now, neither side of the aisle can even put a price tag on the bill — because no one can predict how widespread the pandemic will be.

“Most of the measures in this [plan] are something that the senators support,” Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) agreed. But there are concerns just the same — for small businesses, certainly, and the U.S. deficit. “Many of the 40 House Republicans who opposed the measure Saturday morning complained that they only had a few minutes to read the bill text,” Fox News’s Chad Pegram writes. “And, to this point, no one truly knows the cost of the measure. It’s anywhere from tens of billions of dollars to the hundreds of billions of dollars.” For Congress, it’s a delicate balance. As much as everyone wants to help the economy, conservatives understand: we can’t afford to create more permanent spending programs and entitlements.

Hopefully, a number of these concerns will be sorted out by the Republican Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has promised to work quickly but thoughtfully. In the end, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) advised, Congress needs to “approach this with a level head and pass a bill that does more good than harm.” It would be better to pass nothing, he said, than to rush through anything that could haunt us later on.


Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTILES:

Abortion and Coronavirus: Here’s What You Need to Know

Feed the Need: Churches on the Front Lines of Virus Response

‘There Is No Burden Too Heavy for God’

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action podcast and column are republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Trump Hits Democrats’ Coronavirus Bill as Stuffed With Unrelated ‘Goodies’

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he doesn’t support House Democrats’ coronavirus relief bill in its current form because it includes too many “goodies” that have nothing to do with the disease.

Although the bill addresses providing testing and masks to respond to the coronavirus, it also expands unemployment insurance and food stamps, requires the Social Security Administration to provide paid sick leave, and mandates that employers give paid permanent sick leave to their employees.

A reporter asked Trump at the White House if he supports the legislation.

“No, because there are things in there that have nothing to do with things we are talking about,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


“It’s not a way for them to get some of the goodies that they haven’t been able to get for the last 25 years,” the president said of House Democrats.

As of Thursday afternoon, there were 36 deaths in the U.S. from the new coronavirus disease, called COVID-19, with a total of 1,215 diagnosed cases across 42 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Trump delivered a prime-time address to the nation Wednesday night in which he announced a ban on travel to the U.S. from most European countries and proposed a payroll tax cut and assistance for industries and employees hit hard by the virus.

The president previously restricted travel from China, where the virus originated.

“The Families First Coronavirus Response Act is focused directly on providing support for America’s families, who must be our first priority in this emergency,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a public statement.

The spread of the coronavirus has prompted calls for more government action. The Democrats’ bill includes free coronavirus testing, paid emergency leave for up to 14 days, and more protections for health care workers who might come in contact with infected people.

“We cannot fight coronavirus effectively unless everyone in our country who needs to be tested knows they can get their test free of charge,” Pelosi said. “We cannot slow the coronavirus outbreak when workers are stuck with the terrible choice between staying home to avoid spreading illness and the paycheck their family can’t afford to lose.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., contended that the Democrats are playing politics, but said Congress should remain in session until it gets the bill right.

During the Oval Office session, Trump elaborated on why he excluded the United Kingdom from the ban on travel from Europe.

“One of the reasons [is] the U.K. basically has got the border … it has got very strong borders, and they are doing a very good job,” Trump said. “They don’t have very much infection at this point, and hopefully they keep it that way.”

Trump said life and death issues guide his decisions in dealing with coronavirus:

The question is how many people will die? I don’t want people dying. That’s what I’m all about. I made a very tough decision last night [with the European travel ban] and a very tough decision a long time ago with respect to China. I don’t want people dying, and that’s why I made these decisions.

The president said the stock market is stronger now than when he came into office and predicted it will bounce back.

“Whether it affects the stock market or not [is] very important, but it’s not important compared to life and death,” Trump said. “Frankly, the people that are professionals praised the decision. It’s something I had to do. I think you’ll see the end result is very good because of it, but it will take a period of time.”

Trump said he is “not concerned” about reports that a member of a Brazilian delegation who tested positive for COVID-19 had contact with him last weekend at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham issued a statement later, however.

“Exposures from the case are being assessed, which will dictate next steps,” Grisham said, adding:

Both the president and vice president had almost no interactions with the individual who tested positive and do not require being tested at this time.

As stated before, the White House Medical Unit and the United States Secret Service [have] been working closely with various agencies to ensure every precaution is taken to keep the first and second families and all White House staff healthy.

Kelvin Droegemeier, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, announced Thursday that he held a conference call with government science officials from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Britain on how to tackle the pandemic.

He said the officials talked about sharing more data, how artificial intelligence can be used, and data-sharing repositories.

In the Oval Office session with reporters, Trump was asked if larger quarantine zones in the United States are an option.

“It’s a possibility if somebody gets a little bit out of control, if an area gets too hot,” Trump said. “You see what they are doing in New Rochelle, which is good frankly, but it’s not enforced. It’s not very strong. But people know they are being watched. It’s a hot spot.”

A reporter asked the Irish and American leaders if they shook hands.

They replied that they hadn’t, and instead placed their own palms together in greeting, which was “sort of a weird feeling,” Trump said.

The president said that in India and Japan, where he has visited, shaking hands is less customary.

“They were ahead of the curve,” he said.

Trump acknowledged his reputation as a bit of a germaphobe before entering politics.

“I was never a big hand-shaker as you probably have heard, but once you become a politician, shaking hands is very normal,” he said.

The Irish prime minister followed by saying, “It almost feels like you’re being rude, but we just can’t afford to think like that for the next few weeks.”

COLUMN BY


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Rights Versus Wishes

Sen. Bernie Sanders said: “I believe that health care is a right of all people.”

He’s not alone in that contention. That claim comes from Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives.

It is not just a health care right that people claim. There are “rights” to decent housing, decent food, a decent job, and prescription drugs. In a free and moral society, do people have these rights? Let’s begin by asking ourselves: What is a right?

In the standard usage of the term, a “right” is something that exists simultaneously among people. In the case of our U.S. Constitutional decree, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imposes no obligation upon another other than the duty of noninterference.

As such, a right imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess simultaneously. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference. Similarly, I have a right to travel freely. Again, that right imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference.

Sanders’ claim that health care is a right does impose obligations upon others. We see that by recognizing that there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy who gives resources to government to pay for medical services.

Moreover, the money does not come from congressmen and state legislators reaching into their own pockets to pay for the service. That means that in order for government to provide medical services to someone who cannot afford it, it must use intimidation, threats, and coercion to take the earnings of another American to provide that service.

Let’s apply this bogus concept of rights to my right to speak and travel freely. In the case of my right to free speech, it might impose obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone, and audience. It may require newspapers or television stations to allow me to use their property to express my views.

My right to travel freely might require that others provide me with resources to purchase airplane tickets and hotel accommodations.

What if I were to demand that others make sacrifices so that I can exercise my free speech and travel rights? I suspect that most Americans would say, “Williams, you have rights to free speech and you have a right to travel freely, but I’m not obligated to pay for them!”

A moral vision of rights does not mean that we should not help our fellow man in need. It means that helping with health care needs to be voluntary (i.e., free market decisions or voluntary donations to charities that provide health care.) The government’s role in health care is to protect this individual right to choose.

As Sen. Rand Paul was brave enough to say, “The basic assumption that you have a right to get something from somebody else means you have to endorse the concept of theft.”

Statists go further to claim that people have a “right” to housing, to a job, to an education, to an affordable wage. These so-called rights impose burdens on others in the form of involuntary servitude. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, it means that another person does not have a right to something he did earn.

The provision by the U.S. Congress of a so-called right to health care should offend any sense of moral decency. If you’re a Christian or a Jew, you should be against the notion of one American living at the expense of another.

When God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment—”Thou shalt not steal”—I am sure that He did not mean, “Thou shalt not steal—unless there is a majority vote in the U.S. Congress.”

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Walter E. Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and a professor of economics at George Mason University. Twitter: .


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Teacher Takes Union to Court for Ignoring Supreme Court Ruling on Dues

“Everything the union does is inherently political, and I could see that in the mailings I received,” says art teacher Greg Hartnett, who sued the Pennsylvania State Education Association over fees imposed on nonunion employees.


Pennsylvania’s largest public employee union needs to stop evading a landmark Supreme Court ruling, an art teacher argues in a lawsuit that could undo key provisions of state labor laws.

The Pennsylvania State Education Association continues to negotiate provisions to give it “fair share fees” in collective bargaining agreements, despite the fact that the highest court in the land ruled those fees unconstitutional, a lawyer who represents the art teacher told The Daily Signal in an interview.

“PSEA specifically has a history of thumbing its nose at Supreme Court precedent, and it has sometimes required litigation to make them comply with the court’s rulings,” Nathan McGrath, litigation director at the Fairness Center, said of the teachers union.

The Fairness Center, a nonprofit, public-interest law firm based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, represents art teacher Greg Hartnett and three other public school teachers who sued the Pennsylvania State Education Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association.

Hartnett and the others argue the teachers union shows “a willingness to challenge or ignore Supreme Court precedent,” and that the teachers should not be forced to pay the union’s fair share fees.

The case, Hartnett v. PSEA, is with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is expected to rule in a few months. The Fairness Center teamed with the National Right to Work Foundation to represent the four complaining teachers.

The brief filed in August argues that the teachers union has a long history of undermining and violating Supreme Court rulings. It cites several examples that occurred after the high court’s June 2018 ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which invalidated fair share fees, as being the latest in a series.

Related: A Year After the Supreme Court Rules Against Unions, What’s Changed 

“PSEA specifically has a history of thumbing its nose at Supreme Court precedent, and it has sometimes required litigation to make them comply with the court’s rulings,” McGrath said of the teachers union, adding:

Because of that, the fact that the PSEA and its affiliates are still negotiating fair share fees provisions into collective bargaining agreements after Janus is not actually very shocking to us. This seems to be par for the course for how [the unions] operate, and it’s required federal court cases in the past, and in some cases a very lengthy period of time, to get them to comply with what the Supreme Court has said.

U.S. Department of Labor records show the Pennsylvania State Education Association has about 180,000 members, more than any other government union in the state.

The Daily Signal sought comment from the teachers union on the Hartnett case and on the allegations that the union has a history of violating Supreme Court rulings, including the Janus decision. At the time of publication, the union had not responded.

Targeting Pennsylvania Law

Referring to the 3rd Circuit, McGrath said: “At the end of the day, we would like them to bring Janus to Pennsylvania and say that Pennsylvania’s fair share fee law, which is currently on the books, runs counter to what the Supreme Court has said and to declare the Pennsylvania fair share fee law unconstitutional.”

In the Janus ruling, the Supreme Court said state laws requiring nonunion government workers to pay fair share fees to a union violate the First Amendment rights of employees who do not support the political agenda of public employee unions.

In a press release, the Fairness Center estimates that in more than 70% of Pennsylvania’s 500 school districts, public school teachers who opted out of joining the union were required to pay fair share fees to teachers unions to cover collective bargaining costs.

In the 2016-2017 school year, the fees were only 26% less than full membership dues, the center says.

Hartnett, who teaches art teacher in Homer-Center School District in Indiana County, Pennsylvania, and is the lead plaintiff in the case, previously was a member of the teachers union.

Hartnett, the father of five and an avid hunter, has taught since 1999.

He says that when it became apparent that the union’s political positions were in conflict with his own, he decided to go through the formal process of opting out of membership, which he described as “arduous and complicated.”

After the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling, Hartnett opted out of paying nonmember fair share fees.

“I came to see that the union’s platforms and positions were very liberal and very different from mine and I did not want to contribute to someone else’s politics,” Hartnett said in an interview with The Daily Signal, adding:

The collective bargaining process itself is very political, and when they say political funds are separated from fair share fees, I don’t believe it. Everything the union does is inherently political, and I could see that in the mailings I received. I believe in the freedom of choice for each individual to represent themselves.

Teachers who prefer not to be in the union but need liability insurance and legal protection have alternatives, Hartnett said.

“There are free-market alternatives to the problem of the PSEA,” he said. “It is possible for teachers to go out and get a better product for less money, but I’m not sure many teachers are aware of these options.”

Paycheck Protection

On the day of the Janus ruling, Rebecca Friedrichs, a former California public school teacher, made a prescient observation near the steps leading up to the Supreme Court.

Friedrichs told supporters that the high court’s decision to strike down mandatory union dues and fees was “just the beginning, not the end, of a very long fight.” Friedrichs told The Daily Signal.

In an interview, she said she “she ardently supports the Hartnett case,” which closely mirrors her own litigation.

Related: The Christian Educator Behind Teachers’ Fight for Free Speech at the Supreme Court 

Friedrichs, who taught elementary school students for 28 years in the Savanna School District in Anaheim, California, was the lead plaintiff in a suit opposing mandatory union dues and fees.

She joined with nine other teachers and the Christian Educators Association International to sue the California Teachers Association, the National Education Association, and several local unions. Like Janus, Friedrichs and the other teachers argued that the union mandates violated their First Amendment rights.

Friedrichs’ case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where oral arguments were held Jan. 11, 2016. With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia just a few weeks later, the court deadlocked in a 4-4 ruling that left California’s “agency shop” law in place until it was overturned in the Janus ruling.

But unlike Janus, the Friedrichs case explicitly asked the court to address the need for “paycheck protection” rules to prevent school districts from automatically deducting union dues from employees’ paychecks without their permission.

The former schoolteacher submitted an amicus brief in the Janus case, explaining why it was necessary for government employers and unions to obtain “affirmative consent” from employees before deducting dues or fees from their paychecks.

“We need paycheck protection, otherwise taxpayers will continue to pay for the collection of union dues,” Friedrichs told The Daily Signal, adding:

I submitted an amicus brief in the Janus case where I addressed the need for an opt-in rather than an opt-out arrangement where an employee needed to make a conscious decision to opt in to joining a union rather than going through the cumbersome process of opting out. This is not something Janus specifically asked for, but the court did deliver on this and said that employees must give their affirmative consent and consciously opt in to joining a union and paying union dues. But the other part of this is paycheck protection.

The Commonwealth Foundation, a free-market think tank based in Harrisburg, published a timeline of legislative efforts to implement paycheck protection, which would prohibit state and local government agencies (including school districts) from collecting union dues from the paychecks of government employees at taxpayers’ expense.

“Janus is the first domino and many others need to fall,” Friedrichs said. “Teachers unions are out of control. They’re not unions in the traditional sense and they are not representing teachers.”

The union label is misleading, she argues, because it is used as “a mask to advance a far-left agenda.”

“The unions are using the public schools to spread propaganda to undermine constitutional limited government,” Friedrichs said:

Unions are the root cause of the failure in our schools. They are also still finding ways to collect fair share fees, but they just don’t call them that. The Hartnett case is very important to help ensure the law is being followed and free speech rights are being protected. God bless them.

Friedrichs is the founder of For Kids and Country, a grassroots group of parents, teachers, students, faith leaders, and citizens who support education reform.

Legislative Reforms

Although his clients no longer pay fair share fees, McGrath said, he finds that teachers unions continue to make a concerted effort to undermine the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling.

“PSEA continues to work with their locals to negotiate fair share fee provisions into their collective bargaining arrangements that are being negotiated and signed after Janus,” the Fairness Center lawyer said. “It’s illegal language that’s being negotiated into these contracts. For the most part, PSEA controls negotiations for the locals on their behalf. They are largely dictating what goes into these collective bargaining agreements.”

While the Fairness Center continues to press its case, some Pennsylvania lawmakers have stepped up in an effort to reform the state’s labor laws.

Related: With Millions in Dues at Stake Across US, One Man Fights His Union for a Refund

State Rep. Kate Klunk, a York County Republican, introduced a measure (HB 785) that would require government employers to notify workers of their rights.

State Rep. Greg Rothman, a Cumberland County Republican, introduced a bill (HB 506) to allow government employees to resign from a union anytime they like, without a window to do so or any other restrictions.

“The aim of House Bill 785 is rather simple,” Klunk said in an email to The Daily Signal, adding:

It ensures workers who were once forced to pay into a public sector union know their rights, namely that they do not have to pay so-called fair share fees.

Though the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the ruling in the Janus v. AFSCME decision, not all workers know that they no longer have to pay these fees. My bill would make sure they are alerted to the change. My bill would also alert those who apply for public sector jobs that being a member of the union is not a condition of employment, and that as a nonmember they have no obligation to make any payments.

COLUMN BY

Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kevin. Twitter: @KevinMooneyDC.


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Liberals’ FAMILY Act Would Hurt Low-Income Workers and Families

If liberals want to provide access to paid family and medical leave, they need to come up with a better solution than they have so far.

According to a recent analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, Democrats’ proposed Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act would fail to benefit most of the workers who need it and leave policymakers with a choice between rationed benefits or massive tax hikes.

That’s because, according to the CBO analysis, the new payroll tax revenues proposed to fund the initiative would fall short of the program’s expenses just one year after benefits were to begin.

As more and more people applied for benefits, the so-called FAMILY Act’s costs would soar to 240% of the program’s tax revenues in 2028, just six years after benefits are slated to start.

But because the legislation sets up a new unfunded entitlement program, Congress either would have to ration benefits—limiting who could take leave, for how long they could take it, and the amount of benefits they could receive—or else raise taxes.

The legislation is being sold to Americans as costing a “cup of coffee a week,” but it could end up costing a tank of gas instead. According to the American Action Forum, a federal paid family leave program would cost the average American approximately $1,500 a year.

If you think that’s an exaggeration, America’s first entitlement program—Social Security—started out as a 2% payroll tax. Today, it’s 12.4%. And by 2040, it will have to be 16.6% to pay scheduled benefits.

The pain of higher taxes would be worst for low-income workers and families who, evidence shows, tend to lose more than they gain from government-paid family leave programs.

There are many reasons for that reality, including lower awareness of the programs, inability to make ends meet with partial benefits (such as the FAMILY Act’s 66% benefit level), lower eligibility for government benefits, and rigid rules and administrative barriers.

Consequently, government-run paid family leave programs are regressive, redistributing resources from low-income workers and families to middle- and high-income ones:

  • In California, 38% of the workforce has wages below $20,000, but only 1% of them use the state’s paid family leave program, and workers in the highest income bracket are five times more likely to file paid family leave claims.
  • Even in San Francisco, which provides 100% benefits, low-income mothers were only half as likely as higher-income mothers to receive government benefits.
  • New Jersey’s program was characterized as “simply unaffordable, even for middle-class families, many of whom still live paycheck to paycheck in high-cost New Jersey,” and criticized for “put[ting] many workers below the poverty level for the duration of their leaves, and push[ing] people who are already struggling deeper into poverty.” Recent expansions aimed at increasing awareness and use are projected to quadruple workers’ maximum payroll taxes.
  • Canada’s paid family leave programs have exacerbated class inequality as “the distribution of benefits is unbalanced and aids the social reproduction of higher-income families.”
  • In Norway, which expanded paid leave to 100% replacement rates for nearly all mothers, researchers found that “the extra leave benefits amounted to a pure leisure transfer, primarily to middle- and upper-income families.” They concluded that “the generous extensions to paid leave were costly, had no measurable effect on outcomes, and [also had] poor redistribution properties.”

The FAMILY Act’s provisions would fail to meet most workers’ leave needs, particularly those in the lowest income brackets. Moreover, it would provide windfall benefits to employers and workers who already provide and have access to paid family leave.

Increasingly, employers are providing paid family and medical leave because their workers want it. With a strong economy and competitive labor market, employers find they can lose good workers and incur high turnover costs if they don’t provide paid leave.

Instead of implementing a one-size-fits-all federal program, policymakers should seek to build upon the recent increase in more flexible, generous, and accommodating employer-provided policies.

One way to do that is through the Working Families Flexibility Act, which allows employers to give lower-wage, hourly workers the choice of accumulating “comp time” instead of pay for their overtime hours.

If lawmakers want to help with family leave, they should reject the FAMILY Act, which would cost too much, serve too few, and become more of a burden on taxpayers over time.

Instead, they should take a closer look at the Working Families Flexibility Act and other measures that would encourage more flexible and accommodating leave options.

COMMENTARY BY

Rachel Greszler is research fellow in economics, budget, and entitlements in the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, of the Institute for Economic Freedom, at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research.


VIDEO: Top 10 Reasons Why the 2020 Democratic Candidates Should Terrify You

Anni unveils the Top 10 Reasons Why Democratic Candidates Should Terrify You, revealing how The Unholy Alliance’s menacing threat is more lethal than ever.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch our 3-Part Special with Anni where she discusses Terror, Sharia and Islam.

Part 1: Hijab Forced on Me at the Age of 9.

Part 2: Trump Takes Out Terrorists — and what all those terrorists had in common.

Part 3: Anni’s BLOCKBUSTER video, The Solution to Stop Islam, where she unveils a powerful and humanistic plan. The video has now surpassed 1.5 MILLION VIEWS!

This HUGE and STELLAR success for Anni represents a landmark watershed for The Glazov Gang.

Congratulations Anni! And thank you so much!

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel and to Jamie Glazov Productions. And follow us on Twitter:  JamieGlazov.

FacebookTwitterShare

©All rights reserved.

Tax Cut Gains and Losses, Health Care Costs and the Tidal Wave Exodus from High Tax States

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” – Thomas Jefferson – Founding Father and U.S. President

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…” – James Madison – Founding Father and U.S. President

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” –  John Marshall – Founding Father and 4th U.S. Chief Justice

“Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary (according to our Constitution) is legalized robbery.” – President Calvin Coolidge

“If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.” –  Thomas Paine – Founding Father


The whores in Washington D.C. are money junkies who will ultimately suck the life out of our country for the benefit of their friends and family.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt was no different, his administration was infiltrated with communist agents, agents he allowed to destroy and dismantle the standards set forth by the founders of our Constitutional Republic.

FDR told us the arrangement with Stalin after WWII was a “good deal.” China turned Red, half of Germany was controlled by Communists, and the world was sold to the devil.  Do I trust government, not then and not today!  Yet, I know the President we have in our White House is one of the best men we have ever chosen and he truly loves this country.

Nevertheless, in the long run, the economists who designed both Reagan’s and Trump’s tax programs ended up hurting taxpayers, and ultimately the entire country.  The Democratic socialists always regain power, and when they do, the taxes get raised, but the eliminated deductions are never given back to us.  Worse yet, the 2017 tax reduction has motivated liberals to move out of high tax states into Red states, eventually turning them Blue.

Reagan’s Tax “Cuts”

In 1981, Reagan lowered federal income tax rates significantly with the signing of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which lowered the top marginal tax brackets and slashed estate taxes and trimmed corporate taxes over five years.

Unfortunately, his 1982 tax increase undid a third of his initial tax cut. Reagan agreed to the tax hikes on the promise from Congress of a $3 reduction in spending for every $1 increase in taxes.  Promises made, but never kept.

In 1983, Reagan instituted a payroll tax increase on Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance. In 1984 another bill was introduced that closed tax loopholes. According to tax historian Joseph Thorndike, the bipartisan bills of 1982 and 1984 “constituted the largest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.”

Then came the Tax Reform Act of 1986 where Reagan and Congress sought to simplify the tax system by eliminating many deductions, reducing the highest marginal rates, and reducing the number of tax brackets. It exempted millions of low-income families from a federal income tax by expanding the standard deduction, personal exemption and earned income tax credit (wealth redistribution). It drastically reduced the number of tax brackets, with the top rate for individuals cut from 50 percent to 28 percent; and it slashed corporate tax rates from 48 percent to 34 percent, paid for by eliminating or reducing corporate tax breaks.

It destroyed the middle-class deductions we used to have. There were many, even for contact lens solutions and OTC medications, deductions for interest on credit card purchases and interest on car loans…now long gone, plus so much more.  Middle class Americans were screwed, but they didn’t realize it until Democrats regained power.

This reminds me of Hydra, the mythical Greek beast with hundreds of heads. Each time you cut one off, two more grow back. Like Hydra, our tax code has grown out of control. Since 1986, Congress has made 15,000 changes to the tax code.

President Trump’s Tax Overhaul

Gary Cohn is an American business leader who served as the 11th Director of the National Economic Council and chief economic advisor to President Trump from 2017 to 2018. When Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin’s confirmation hearings were held up, Cohn pushed ahead on taxes, infrastructure, financial regulation, and replacing the health-care law.

Cohn was a supporter of globalism and was nicknamed “Globalist Gary” and “Carbon Tax Cohn.”  He led the Trump administration’s efforts to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). Mick Mulvaney, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget said about Gary Cohn, “As a right-wing conservative and founding member of the Freedom Caucus, I never expected that the coworker I would work closest, and best with at the White House would be a globalist.”

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

So, what did the TCJA actually do for us?  It’s not all good news for taxpayers. The TCJA also eliminates or limits many tax breaks, and much of the tax relief is only temporary.  It includes significant changes for individual taxpayers, most of which took effect for 2018, but expires after 2025.  Once they expire, the tax rate will undoubtedly be hiked, but bye-bye to our former deductions, just like the ones we lost with Reagan.

TCJA calls for annual inflation adjustments to be calculated using the chained consumer price index.  This will push taxpayers into a higher tax bracket much quickly and far easier.  This part is permanent.

The increased standard deduction could compensate for the elimination of the exemptions, and perhaps even provide some additional tax savings. But for those with many dependents or who itemize deductions, these changes might result in a higher tax bill — depending in part on the extent to which they can benefit from the family tax credits.  Many common and righteous deductions are eliminated.

  • Moving expenses for work is eliminated, except for active duty military.
  • Alimony payments that were deductible, so that the receiving spouse paid the income taxes, are no longer a deduction for the payee.
  • State and local tax deductions were on the chopping block but survived in part. For 2018–2025, taxpayers can claim a deduction of no more than $10,000 for the aggregate of state and local property taxes and either income or sales taxes.
  • The TCJA tightens limits on the deduction for home mortgage interest. For 2018–2025, it generally allows a taxpayer to deduct interest only on mortgage debt of up to $750,000. However, the limit remains at $1 million for mortgage debt incurred before December 15, 2017, which will significantly reduce the number of taxpayers affected.
  • Home Equity loan interest is no longer deductible if it is not for home improvements. The rules are complex and the new law is still being interpreted.
  • A deduction for expenses such as certain professional fees, investment expenses and unreimbursed employee business expenses is suspended for 2018–2025. If you’re an employee and work from home, this includes the home office deduction.
  • Personal casualty and theft loss deduction. For 2018–2025, this deduction is suspended except if the loss was due to an event officially declared a disaster by the President.
  • For 2018–2025, the limit on the deduction for cash donations to public charities is raised to 60% of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) from 50%.
  • Beginning after December 31, 2017, the TCJA prohibits taxpayers who convert a pretax traditional IRA into a post-tax Roth IRA from later “recharacterizing” (that is, reversing) the conversion.
  • The TCJA eliminates the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act requiring taxpayers not covered by a qualifying health plan to pay a penalty, effective for months beginning after December 31, 2018. However, we are still receiving notices that we must submit to IRS that we are covered by insurance…Why?

There are many more changes, especially to business, but these are just a few of those which affect individual taxpayers.

The Mass Exodus

Some folks are seeing smaller federal tax bites and bigger refunds, thanks to a more generous standard deduction in the tax overhaul of 2017, and this is the part the president wants to make permanent. But the millions of people who are accustomed to writing off state income tax and local property tax payments are feeling the pinch due to one of the most contentious aspects of the revised system.

It limits deductions for state and local taxes (SALT) to $10,000 on a joint return, which has the intended effect of increasing federal taxes, particularly on residents of high-taxing states such as California and New York, and don’t forget New Jersey, Oregon, Washington State, Massachusetts and others.  Folks who own homes in both warm and cold climates are limited to the deduction, but it’s not just luxury homes, the middle class is feeling the pinch as well.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said that his state has collected $2.3 billion less during December and January of tax revenue.  And this is blamed on the flight of high-income taxpayers to states with low or no state income taxes, especially Florida.

States with no income tax like Florida, Texas and Tennessee are seeing population explosions.  Other states are popular, but these three are at the top, and all three are Red States!  People are leaving these high tax states in droves.  Did globalist Gary Cohn figure this into the tax plan?

Virginia used to be a conservative state until many of the Democrat DC residents moved south, and now they’ve taken over North Carolina as well.  When they leave the higher cost living areas, they don’t leave behind their politics, they bring them with them, and their newly occupied states eventually turn Blue.  This is the danger in the 2017 tax bill.  America could drastically change.

Healthcare Losses

Most middle class Americans gained in 2018 through the new tax bill, but we must remember that thanks to neo-con Trotskyite Republican Senators John McCain, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, Repeal and Replace for Obamacare failed.  McCain had campaigned on a promise to repeal the bill, but once again he lied to his constituents. His hatred for President Trump meant more than his promise to the people. The House passed the bill by a narrow margin.

In 2019, business insurance costs went up exponentially for employees.  Even privately held insurance went up again including higher deductibles. In 2020, many employees are paying increases of $2600 or higher per year to cover the cost of healthcare and that’s with deductibles reaching from $5,000 to $15,000 per family.

This easily wipes out the paycheck gains of the 2017 middle class tax cut.  Medical deductibles have risen every year across the board; most families never meet the deductibles for the year, and if they do, it’s not until September or October. The cost of medication has increased as well.

Under Obamacare, physicians who prescribe medications must be seen at least once a year to insure they can continue to fill your prescriptions throughout the year and each year new paperwork is required. And now, insurers including Blue Cross and Medicare insist that if you have hypertension, high cholesterol, or are on medications that used to be checked during yearly physicals, you must now see your physician two to four times a year for blood tests.  Americans who have been on medications for 15 to 20 years and only needed yearly checkups, are now stuck with extra checkups and blood tests.

The costs are increasing exponentially with the deductibles and having to pay for more blood tests and office visits per year is punitive. If patients fail to keep these appointments, insurers can and will consider them “non-compliant patients” and drop them from their insurance.

Yes, Obamacare needs to be destroyed, and national healthcare in America needs to be buried in the dustbin of toxic and murderous ideas and that is why we need to regain the House.

Conclusion

Communist Bernie Sanders and his Democratic socialist comrades love progressive taxation, and they support the Affordable Care Act as a first, but insufficient, step toward full national health care.  Like all socialists, their political theory is derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

The Trumps were close to Norman Vincent Peale and his family.  Peale was the nationally renowned pastor of Marble Collegiate in Manhattan.  He was also known for his opposition to collectivism, from FDR’s New Deal, to Soviet communism.  Peale knew communism was the biggest threat to liberty and freedom, and Donald Trump, who loved Peale, knows that as well.  It is why he ran for president.  He knows that freedom means individual choice, not communist collectivization.

President Donald Trump absolutely must be re-elected…but more importantly, true hardcore old-right conservatives must replace the neo-con Republicans and the socialist democrats in Congress.  We must regain the House and keep and enlarge the Senate with strongholds of true conservative old-right Constitutionalists.

President Trump is counting on us to help him Make America Great Again.

© All rights reserved.

Pence: ‘Socialism Has Failed … Freedom Works’ [Video]

Vice President Mike Pence warned a gathering of conservative activists Thursday about the perils of socialism and its historical record of failure.

“Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, in every era in every continent. Freedom works,” Pence told a cheering crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference, known as CPAC. “It was freedom and not socialism that ended slavery, ended two world wars, [and] has made America a beacon of hope.”

The vice president, tasked with leading the government’s response to the coronavirus, also said Americans “expect us to work together” to keep the public safe.

Pence repeated President Donald Trump’s vow that “America will never be a socialist country” as he noted that the ideology has gained in popularity among lawmakers on the left in Congress as well as on college campuses.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


Socialism is being sold as a promise of better health care and a cleaner environment, Pence said.

“The reality of socialism is different,” the vice president said. “The truth is, citizens in the most free countries in the world earn seven times more than citizens in the least free countries.”

Pence noted Venezuela’s grave problems and shortages as the country is in the midst of a struggle for freedom against what the Trump administration considers dictator Nicolas Maduro’s illegitimate government.

“Venezuela was once the second-wealthiest country in our hemisphere,” Pence said. “Then we wake up after a decade of a socialist dictatorship. Almost 5 million people in that country have fled to neighboring lands.”

Pence spoke about a woman from Venezuela who said her grandchildren had to rise at 4 a.m. to get a ticket to stand in line to buy a piece of bread in the afternoon.

“This president and this administration will continue to stand with the people of Venezuela,” Pence said.

The vice president also said the Democratic Party has embraced socialism.

“Whether it’s called ‘Medicare for All’ or a ‘Green New Deal,’ Democrats have embraced socialism,” he said. “History tells us it has literally impoverished millions of people and robbed the liberty of generations.”

Pence began by speaking about the coronavirus one day after Trump put the vice president in charge of the federal government’s response. The vice president said:

We’re all in this together. This is not the time for partisanship. The American people expect us to work together. … I promise you this administration will work with leaders in both parties, on the state and local level. This president will always put the health and safety of America first.

Pence said the White House’s coronavirus task force has met daily and that as of Thursday, 15 known cases of the disease have been detected in the United States.

“The risk to the American public remains low,” Pence said. “We are ready for anything.”

CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, runs Thursday through Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington.

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Left Will Keep Trying to Oust Trump, House Conservatives Predict

Sen. Joni Ernst Reveals the Soviet Union Trip That Influenced Her Views on Socialism

Coronavirus Spreads to Europe and Middle East. What That Means for This Global Health Crisis.

‘America Needs Our Help to Keep Her Special,’ Heritage President Tells Conservatives


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

What the New Self-Reliance Rule Means for Immigrants

Politicians across the political spectrum have a penchant for bragging about how their parents or ancestors came to the U.S. with next to nothing, but worked hard to provide a better life for their children.

Yet when the Department of Homeland Security proposed taking self-reliance into account in weighing applications for green cards or immigration visas, liberals condemned the proposal as harsh and sued to block the proposed rule from taking effect.

Initially, they won court injunctions in several jurisdictions. Now, however, all have been dismissed. And so, the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds rule took effect nationwide Monday.

If you think that means poor immigrants must now abandon all hope of entering the U.S. or becoming permanent residents, think again. The left has tremendously overblown the scope of this rule.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


The rule defines a “public charge” as one who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months, in the aggregate, within any 36-month period (such that, for example, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months).

The rule defines “public benefit” to include any federal, state, local, or tribal cash benefits for income maintenance (including Social Security, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, General Assistance), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, most forms of Medicaid, Section 8 Housing/Rental Assistance, and public housing.

Benefits not considered include emergency medical assistance, disaster relief, national school lunch programs, the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, foster care and adoption subsidies, government-subsidized student and mortgage loans, energy assistance, food pantries, homeless shelters, and Head Start.

The rule will not be applied retroactively. It does, however, apply to future applicants for visas and green cards. According to Homeland Security,  each year about 382,000 immigrants seek a change in status that would make them subject to a public charge review.

The rule also sets forth the factors U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services must consider in whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge. Those factors include age, health, income, education, and skills.

The agency also can, in certain circumstances, offer an applicant the opportunity to post a public charge bond. The final rule sets the minimum bond amount at $8,100, but the actual amount will depend on an individual’s circumstances.

The rule has many exceptions. It does not apply to humanitarian-based immigration programs for refugees, asylees, special immigrant juveniles, certain trafficking victims, victims of qualifying criminal activity, or victims of domestic violence. Members of the military and their families are also exempt.

The public charge rule is really nothing new. Long before there was any federal agency charged with implementing immigration policy, seaboard states enacted laws to restrict immigration by those deemed likely to become dependent on public welfare.

The first federal immigration law, the Immigration Act of 1882, reflected this concern, excluding from entry “any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” The act also created a federal immigration head-tax, the proceeds from which were used to care for immigrants arriving in the U.S., including those who fell into economic distress.

In 1996, Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed into law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. It includes statements of national policy on welfare and immigration, including:

—Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of U.S. immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes.

—Immigrants will not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations.

—The availability of public benefits will not constitute an incentive for immigration to the U.S.

Although the Immigration and Naturalization Service published a proposed rule to define “public charge” in 1999, it wasn’t finalized. As of Monday, however, that job was completed.

No, this limited rule will not cause the immigration sky to fall. It will, however, reaffirm the essential American value of self-reliance through hard work—a value that politicians from both parties claim to esteem.

COLUMN BY

Lora Ries

Lora Ries is a senior research fellow specializing in homeland security at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @lora_ries.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Arizona GOP Leader Explains Why Area Voted Against Sanctuary Status

‘Endangers the Lives of the Public’: Trump Tears Into LA Mayor Over Sanctuary Status

Arizona Sheriff Describes Fight to Stop Cartels From Trafficking Drugs, Humans

What’s Really Driving the Homelessness Crisis

Cuban Americans Tell What Life Under Castro Was Really Like


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Why the Movie Industry Is Fleeing California

Why is the film industry abandoning its Mount Olympus?


Ah, Hollywood. The Mecca of filmmaking. Thousands of would-be actors, screenwriters, and directors flock to Los Angeles, California to fulfill their dreams of becoming a star because, after all, that’s where movie-making happens. Everyone knows this.

And for close to a century, it was true. But today, Hollywood—the way we generally think of it—is fading away and going elsewhere. In fact, in 2017, only ten of the top 100 movies produced that year were made mostly in California.

It’s no secret that the entire state of California is experiencing a large and sustained out-flow of residents, but Los Angeles County, in particular, is showing the biggest losses. The question is why.

Why is the film industry abandoning its Mount Olympus?

A Hollywood Origin Story

Let’s back up for a minute and look at how Hollywood (the term used to describe the mainstream film industry because, yes, you’re correct, Hollywood, originally Hollywoodland, came from the name of a specific neighborhood in Los Angeles) came to be in Los Angeles to begin with.

Back at the end of the 19th century, motion pictures were a very new technology, and a handful of people held almost all of the patents related to the filming and screening of said films. Chief among them was Thomas Edison.

History remembers Edison as an important inventor but not so much as a nice guy. That’s probably a fair assessment, especially when it comes to early film-making technology.

Films at the tail-end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century in America were made almost exclusively on the East Coast—New Jersey, mostly. Films were short, silent, and lacked much of the subtlety and nuance that modern moviegoers have come to expect from cinema. At the time, though, they were cutting-edge and incredibly popular.

One could make a very good living running a show house or nickelodeon in any big city.

Right up until December 1908, that is.

That’s when Edison spearheaded the creation of the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC), generally referred to as the Edison Trust. It was comprised of the holders of all the significant patents related to the production and screening of motion pictures, including Biograph, Vitagraph, American Mutoscope, Kodak, and others.

Edison was widely known for having strong opinions about what kinds of movies should be made, how long they should be, who should be credited in them, and what it should cost to show them. With the control of the patents he himself owned combined with the collective clout of the other members, the MPPC ruled the movie-making industry with an iron fist. They sued those who didn’t comply with their dictates for patent infringement, refused to sell them equipment and film, and, occasionally, sent hired hooligans to wreck up movie sets or show houses.

As Dan Lewis at Mental Floss writes,

In short, if you wanted to be in the movie business, you did so at the pleasure of Thomas Edison. And Edison (via the MPPC) was not one to back down. The Company took to the courts to prevent the unauthorized use of everything from cameras to projectors — and in many cases, the films themselves. According to Steven Bach in his book, Final Cut, the MPPC even went to the extreme “solution” of hiring mob-affiliated thugs to enforce the patents extra-judiciously. Pay up — or else.

As you might imagine, some filmmakers chafed under such rigid constraints and looked for ways to escape Edison and his MPPC. Their solution? Head west.

After Arizona failed its audition, Los Angeles became the destination for aspiring filmmakers. In addition to being as far away as possible from New Jersey and the MPPC, the tiny town boasted a copious amount of sunny weather—critical to filmmakers in the days of extremely limited artificial lighting—as well as an abundance of cheap real estate and high-skill, low-cost labor.

The local government was pro-business. Should the MPPC actually manage to send a lawsuit that far away, the Mexican border was close enough to duck across until the process server gave up and went home. The geography was varied and beautiful.

After WWI broke out, Los Angeles became the movie-making hot-spot as American film production was sought out to replace the movies that were no longer being made in war-torn Europe. Hollywood’s star was on the rise, and millions of people over the decades decided to hitch their wagons to it.

Hollywood’s Act II Problems

For most of the 20th century, it was good to be Hollywood. There was no shortage of money and talent coming in the door. But over time, things began to change. As film technology made big advancements like broadcast TV in the 1950s and home video in the 1980s, the various roles in the film industry in California also saw surges in unionization.

This led to the various roles on film sets to be increasingly tightly-defined and contractually protected. No one may step even an inch into someone else’s lane.

Nick Bilton in Vanity Fair relates the “Raindrop Story” he heard from a Hollywood screenwriter:

The production was shooting a scene in the foyer of a law firm, which the lead rushed into from the rain to utter some line that this screenwriter had composed. After an early take, the director yelled “Cut,” and this screenwriter, as is customary, ambled off to the side with the actor to offer a comment on his delivery. As they stood there chatting, the screenwriter noticed that a tiny droplet of rain remained on the actor’s shoulder. Politely, as they spoke, he brushed it off. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, an employee from the production’s wardrobe department rushed over to berate him. “That is not your job,” she scolded. “That is my job.”

The screenwriter was stunned. But he had also worked in Hollywood long enough to understand what she was really saying: quite literally, wiping rain off an actor’s wardrobe was her job—a job that was well paid and protected by a union. And as with the other couple of hundred people on set, only she could perform it.

And it’s not just unionized labor that’s expensive in California. Sticking with labor costs, California has the second-highest minimum wage in the country at $13 an hour, though that’s set to increase to $15 an hour by 2022. And though there’s still some back-and-forthing going on regarding the notorious AB5 law, many businesses in the state are being told they need to hire their freelancers as (far more expensive) permanent employees.

Not only that, but California’s real estate and housing markets are among the most expensive in the country, a trend that shows no real sign of improving. The state’s zoning and building regulations make innovation difficult. Special preferential political treatment of the California agriculture industry has led to water rationing for individuals during drought conditions.

In fact, drinking water isn’t the only beverage subject to regulation in California. Furthermore, the state’s 2019 kerfuffle with electricity provider PG&E’s rolling blackouts for customers during high winds is also largely a problem created by the meddlesome state government.

Once all of these factors—and the above list is by no means comprehensive—are taken into account, California has the highest poverty rate in the US.

It isn’t that filmmakers don’t want to film in Los Angeles—they do. But all of these combined constraints significantly increase the total costs of filming and producing in California. Heck, not even films set in Los Angeles are being shot in Los Angeles these days.

So, take the barriers and high costs in California, combine it with fewer and fewer people going to the movies anymore, and the result is a shrinking profit margin for production studios. Something was bound to give.

Around the mid-1990s, other states and countries saw a chance to entice production companies away from California and to bring their cool—and taxable—jobs with them. States like Louisiana and Georgia along with Canada began offering some pretty sweet incentives packages for filmmakers and production companies.

Some places offered subsidies (direct payments), but the lion’s share of pretty much all of the financial incentive packages was tax breaks (a lower tax bill). Though those two kinds of incentives are often conflated, they are not, in fact, the same thing.

And it worked. The state of Georgia, the UK, and Canada all top California when it comes to the number of films shot and produced there.


via Gfycat

Why would production companies leave what has become their ancestral homeland for Georgia or Louisiana? The same reasons they went to California in the first place: to make more money.

Outside constraints—whether from tyrannical patent trolls like the Edison Trust, micromanaging union guidelines, or well-meaning but poorly-considered legislation—made making movies expensive enough that a reduction in production costs was enough to outweigh the hassle of relocating. It was true in 1909, and it was true in 1997. It remains true today.

Though the film industry is one of the most visible ones to ease its way out of California, it’s by no means alone. The entire state is seeing residents of all kinds leaving. In 2018 alone, the state saw a net loss of about 190,000 residents. That’s slightly more than the entire population of Shreveport, Louisiana. According to a recent UC Berkeley poll, about half of the people still living in California have considered leaving.

When asked why, 71 percent cited the high cost of housing and 51 percent said it was because of the high tax burden.At the end of the day, filmmakers are just trying to make a living creating art. That’s already a difficult path to navigate. It should surprise no one that when a smoother route opens up, a lot of people would choose it over the more difficult one.

And the same is true for every industry everywhere. Instead of making life more difficult and expensive by putting up barriers like high taxes, occupational licensing requirements, compulsory union membership, expensive building requirements, and so on that satisfy special interest requests without doing much to improve life for everyday people, California could just let individuals, businesses, and industries succeed or fail based on their own merits in the market. With fewer obstacles to overcome just to get started, individuals and their businesses would stand a much better chance of improving their lives.

For Hollywood, history is repeating itself. California used to be a safe haven for those looking to escape the control freaks of the Edison Trust. Now California itself is the control freak that entertainment entrepreneurs are fleeing as they seek refuge elsewhere. The exodus of talent (and tax dollars) from California won’t stop until it restores the relative economic freedom that allowed Hollywood to become the entertainment capital of the world in the first place.

Jen Maffessanti

Jen Maffessanti is a Senior Associate Editor at FEE and mother of two. When she’s not advocating for liberty or chasing kids, she can usually be found cooking or maybe racing cars. Check out her website.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2019 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.