Cut to the News Weekend - March 28, 2021
Published: Sun, 03/28/21
Thank you to everyone who participated in the White House Dossier Virtual Happy Hour Friday evening. It was fun sharing a drink with you and getting to know one another a bit. I very much appreciate your commentary, ideas, and camaraderie. Please feel free to bring a friend next time. We'll have our next libation to liberty in two weeks, on Friday, April 9th at 6 pm Eastern. Please shoot me an email if you have interest in a specific topic that I had mentioned or a different one. If anyone wished to participate but was unable because of technical difficulties, please let me know also. Happy Passover to those who celebrate it!
Here are a few good reads and listens for your enjoyment:
Incredible Shrinking Income Inequality . . . The refrain is all too familiar: Widening income inequality is a fatal flaw in capitalism and an “existential” threat to democracy. From 1967 to 2017, income inequality in the U.S. spiked 21.4%, and everyone from U.S. senators to the pope says it’s an urgent problem. Yet the data upon which claims about income inequality are based are profoundly flawed. Census Bureau income data fail to count two-thirds of all government transfer payments—including Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and some 100 other government transfer payments—as income to the recipients. Furthermore, census data fail to count taxes paid as income lost to the taxpayer. When official government data are used to correct these deficiencies—when income is defined the way people actually define it—“income inequality” is reduced dramatically. If you count all government transfers (minus administrative costs) as income to the recipient household, reduce household income by taxes paid, and correct for two major discontinuities in the time-series data on income inequality that were caused solely by changes in Census Bureau data-collection methods, the claim that income inequality is growing on a secular basis collapses. Not only is income inequality in America not growing, it is lower today than it was 50 years ago. Wall Street Journal
Is Populism Going To ‘Fritter Over Time’ As George W. Bush Predicts? . . . Former President George W. Bush recently said he’s not worried about the current moment in American politics because “these populist movements begin to fritter over time.” His statement is frustrating. Populism is, of course, less of a political ideology than it is a sign people are unhappy with American leadership. The approval and trust levels for elected leaders and leading institutions have been in free-fall for years. On the left and on the right, there is a growing belief that society’s riches are flowing too heavily to a privileged and well-connected few and not enough to the average American. On the left, there is a strong desire to redistribute more wealth through huge tax changes. On the right, the focus is on issues such as immigration, trade and globalization. In the worst-case scenario, our leaders can ignore the warning signs and hope things just fritter away. That’s the scenario we are in, unfortunately.
Populism can definitely turn ugly. We have seen some of that already. And historically, ignoring the concerns of regular people led to almost 100 years of repressive communist rule in Russia and the development of a Nazi state in Germany that didn’t end until millions were killed in a world war. But these leaders are living in a world that is not reflective of America as a whole. For our country to move in a constructive direction, our leaders need to break out of their bubbles and step up. The same voters now clamoring for change once voted for Barack Obama and George Bush. They haven’t turned into bad people overnight. They just don’t believe our system is really working for their interests. That concern can lead to positive reform, or it can turn really ugly. It’s still up to us. Either way, this isn’t likely to just fritter away. Daily Caller
This is a brilliant opinion piece by the co-founder of The Daily Caller, Neil Patel. Let's exchange our views on the issue of populism that he is raising during our next White House Dossier Happy Hour on April 9.
What is the Senate filibuster, and what would it take to eliminate it? . . . The Senate cloture rule—which requires 60 members to end debate on most topics and move to a vote—could pose a steep barrier to any incoming president’s policy agenda. Voices on both sides have called for reform in the face of partisan gridlock, and while change may be possible now that Democrats control Congress and the White House, complicated dynamics in the Senate would make it an uphill battle. The Senate has a number of options for curtailing the use of the filibuster, including by setting a new precedent, changing the rule itself, or placing restrictions on its use. President Joe Biden has expressed some openness to the idea, depending on how obstructive congressional Republicans become, but it’s ultimately up to the Senate to set the process in motion. Use of the Senate cloture rule has become far more common in the 21st century. More cloture motions have been filed in the last two decades than in the 80 years prior. Brookings
Just weeks into Joe Biden’s presidency, it is clear that he faces considerable obstacles in pursuing his agenda in Congress. The Senate cloture rule—which requires 60 votes to cut off debate on most measures—is probably the highest hurdle. Democrats’ Senate majority rests on the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris, and even the process of organizing the Senate’s committees got bogged down by a debate over whether Democrats would attempt to eliminate the legislative filibuster in the opening weeks of the 117th Congress. While Democrats have some procedural options for circumventing the filibuster—discussed in greater detail below—the debate over whether to retain the procedure is likely to remain center stage as legislators work to address the range of challenges facing the country.
Trump's brilliant America First social media move . . . Donald Trump could run for president of the United States for a second term. And who knows, maybe he will. But the better, more beneficial, even brilliant move is the one he’s making — to blow up social media with a new platform. The Big Tech takeover of free speech hasn’t just impacted Trump. It’s chilled all of America — all of conservative America, that is. And the conservative counterpunch to that has all-too-frequently been to call for congressional crackdown on the social media giants — for government regulation, for a pull of Section 230 provisions, for a break-up of the social platform monopoly. For conservatives, for limited government types, for free-market advocates, for those who stand strong on constitutional ideals and liberty-like principles, the problem with calling on government to fix the social media censorship is this: These companies are privately owned. They’re fueled by the free market. They’re creations of a capitalistic society. And it’s a rock and hard place when conservatives start calling on government to fix private sector companies.
The real fix, after all, is competition. When companies behave in ways that consumers don’t like, the best fix in a capitalistic country is for another company to rise and beat a path to become number one in that particular business sector, in that specific market. Capitalists don’t cry to government. Capitalists seize the entrepreneurial spirit and exploit it for greatness. That’s called the American Dream, by the way. The same American Dream that’s aligned with Trump’s famous America First message and America First presidential policy. Washington Times
Concealed Carry Corner: Questioning Whether You Could Take A Human Life . . . Most people have heard various statistics about people being killed with their own gun, of which I don’t really pay attention to, since the typical sources are coming from known anti-gunners. However, I won’t deny that people have been killed with their own firearms, which could stem from a number of factors during a lethal force encounter. Today, we’ll be focusing on one factor in particular; the mindset of being unwilling to pull the trigger, and the dangers of that unwillingness to take a human life, to save yourself or others. Numerous people ask me about carrying a firearm for protection. One of the first questions I ask is whether or not that person can be at peace with taking the life of another to protect themselves, a loved one, or even a stranger. Most people have already thought this through and answer “yes,” however, several people have hesitated to answer, and some have finally come to the conclusion that “no, I could not take a human life”. My answer to those that decide they could not take a human life is that they should not carry a gun until they change that mindset. I gently explain that presenting a gun to an assailant in the hopes that they will become frightened and run away could lead to their own demise with their own gun. introducing a deadly weapon that you’re not willing to actually use is a recipe for disaster. Firearm Blog/Concealed Carry Corner
Jordan Peterson Reveals The 4 Steps to FIX YOUR LIFE . . . Dr. Peterson is a professor at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist and the author of the million-plus selling 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (Jan 2018, Penguin Books), which has been a Number 1 bestseller in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands and Brazil, and which is now slated to be translated into 40 languages. In this episode of The School of Greatness, Lewis Howes interviews Dr. Peterson, discussing why we admire sports figures, how any aim (even a bad one) is crucial for you to feel fulfilled, and a mindset tool you can use to motivate you to do hard things. Lewis Howes
This is a long one but so good. Check it out and you can always finish it later.
What makes life worth living . . . By Maria Popova
“After you have exhausted what there is in business, politics, conviviality, love, and so on — have found that none of these finally satisfy, or permanently wear — what remains?” the aging Walt Whitman asked in his diary as he contemplated what makes life worth living while recovering from a paralytic stroke, then answered: “Nature remains… the trees, fields, the changes of seasons — the sun by day and the stars of heaven by night.” A century after Whitman’s birth, on the other side of a globe newly disillusioned with its own humanity after the First World War, a young Japanese man was embarking on a life of celebrating the inexhaustible consolations of nature in uncommonly poetic visual art. Brain Pickings
Mireille Mathieu Pardonne Moi 1970 You Tube
Mireille Mathieu has the most powerful voice I've ever heard. Yes, you may disagree. ;-) Even if you don't understand French, her singing is pure delight. Listen in your headphones and crank up the volume all the way up. Enjoy!
Have a beautiful and relaxing evening.
Rebekah