The Patriot Post Digest 10-14-2016

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 10-14-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Oct. 14, 2016

IN TODAY’S EDITION

Deficit spending hasn’t yielded economic growth, and both are going in the wrong direction.
FBI agents are rumbling about revolt over Clinton not being charged.
The social media thought police are at it again, this time on Twitter and YouTube.
Comparing and contrasting the Clinton and Trump tax reform plans is enlightening.
And more news, policy and opinion.

THE FOUNDATION

“We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.” —Thomas Jefferson (1816)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Bigger Deficits and More Economic Woes Ahead1

The problem with Keynesian economics is paying off the massive accumulation of debt resulting from the government’s deficit spending when the promised economic growth spurt never materializes. The Congressional Budget Office has released its revised deficit estimate2 for fiscal year 2016 — the deficit grew by $149 billion from the previous year to a total of $588 billion. Deficit spending in 2016 amounted to more than was spent on the military budget and just under what was spent on Medicare. So much for Barack Obama’s promises of getting the debt under control, as the yearly deficit is estimated to increase to a trillion dollars a year by 2022.

And all of that spending didn’t do a thing to spark economic growth. Indeed, as the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression continues to limp along at the paltry average of only 2.1% growth since 2009, there are new concerns of a coming recession within the next four years (as if we ever truly exited the last one). The Wall Street Journal’s recent survey of economists puts the odds of a looming recession at 60%. Meanwhile, real unemployment remains about twice what media headlines depict. With Hillary Clinton promising even more government spending and increasing taxes3 and Donald Trump’s promise of renegotiating trade deals and raising tariffs, the prospect of either candidate preventing an already weak economy from sinking back into recession seems unlikely. Unfortunately, for many Americans, the economic outlook continues to look rather bleak.

Revolt Builds at FBI and DOJ4

FBI Director James Comey claims politics was irrelevant in the FBI’s decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton5 despite her jeopardizing national security by using unsecure email servers while secretary of state. But it’s increasingly evident that most colleagues in his field disagree. In fact, sources say most people at the FBI and the Department of Justice believe politics was the determining factor, which is quietly culminating into what could become a messy revolt.

According to Fox News, “More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.” As you know, the review resulted in no charges, yet an anonymous FBI official told Fox News, “No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision.”

The source went on to say, “It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted. We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us. … Basically, James Comey hijacked the DOJ’s role by saying ‘no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case.’… I know zero prosecutors in the DOJ’s National Security Division who would not have taken the case to a grand jury.” Other FBI agents have come forward as well, all of whom agree that the case reeks of deception and obfuscation.

In July a defensive Comey explained, “Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way.” On the contrary, former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, who has been told a similar story of utter disunity, believes a lack of professionalism is agitating an agency that’s on the brink of collapse.

He told6 Hot Air’s Larry O'Connor, “This is a big development. This means there are some great, traditional, honest people inside the FBI and DOJ who will not let this stand. They know that Comey is a dirty cop and they are disgusted. Inside the bureau I had a meeting … with a senior former FBI agent who told me this exact story. That people are starting to talk. They’re calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for help. We were asked, today, to provide legal representation for people inside the bureau and we agreed to do so. And, to former agents who want to come forward to talk.”

In other words, things could get messy real soon. On the bright side, it’s encouraging to know there are government officials who still believe in Rule of Law.

The Social Media Thought Police7

Policing thought is, unfortunately, one of the realities of social media. We’ve detailed8 the censorship and bias of Facebook, but it’s hardly alone. Recently, Twitter suspended University of Tennessee law professor and blogger extraordinaire Glenn Reynolds (a.k.a. Instapundit) over a “controversial” tweet about Black Lives Matter protesters. He was restored upon appeal, but it shouldn’t have happened in the first place. This week, Twitter also suspended the account of conservative activist James O'Keefe. This time, it has to do with guns.

O'Keefe had just captured former Sen. Russ Feingold on camera saying, “Well, there might be an executive order” on gun control. A major Hillary Clinton donor also said, “Hillary wants to shut it down. If we can get guns away from everyone in this country, she’ll close the loopholes, she’ll get rid of assault weapons, she will get rid of being able to buy you know, unlimited bullets, she’s gonna make all that stop.”

Think Twitter didn’t want to suppress that? Ostensibly, this is about photos or videos without the subject’s consent, but O'Keefe has a habit of breaking inconvenient stories.

Meanwhile, YouTube has gotten in on the anti-conservative act. Prager University, which was created by conservative radio host Dennis Prager9 and offers short educational videos on a variety of topics from a Judeo-Christian perspective, has charged that Google-owned YouTube has been censoring a number of its educational videos by classifying 21 of them as “restricted.” Video titles such as “Are the Police Racist?10,” “What ISIS Wants,” “Did Bush Lie About Iraq?11” and “What is the University Diversity Scam?” have landed under YouTube’s “restricted mode.”

YouTube will restrict videos if they contain inappropriate or objectionable adult and sexual content. In doing so, the ubiquitous video sharing website is making it particularly difficult for students to gain access to their videos as most schools prevent students from accessing restricted content.

As Facebook, Twitter and Google illustrate, social media giants are putting a finger on the scale, discriminating against conservative content.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Jonah Goldberg: Billy Bush Is Collateral Damage in Trump Tape Controversy12
Mona Charen: The War on Women Is Back13
David Harsanyi: Only Gridlock Can Save America Now14

For more, visit Right Opinion15.

TOP HEADLINES

Clinton Lies About Her Email Under Oath16
Chris Christie Faces Criminal Summons17
University of Florida Providing Counselors for Halloween Costumes18

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report19.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Two Completely Different Tax Approaches3

By Michael Swartz

In the second presidential debate20 last Sunday night, Donald Trump made a point that seemed to be lost in the post-debate analysis of whether he was serious about putting Hillary Clinton in jail21 or just trying to deflect attention from his crude, decade-old remarks about married women strategically discussed22 non-stop by a breathless 24/7 media complex. Your paycheck could be affected by the next president.

The question was a loaded one, and seemingly intended as a softball for Hillary: “What specific tax provisions will you change to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share in taxes?” Never mind the premise of a “fair share,” since the American tax system is already steeply progressive23 in the sense that the wealthy pay a far larger than proportional share of their income.

Donald Trump, though, made the distinction quite clear24: “I will tell you, Hillary Clinton is raising your taxes, folks. … She’s raising your taxes really high. And what that’s going to do is a disaster for the country. But she is raising your taxes and I’m lowering your taxes. That in itself is a big difference.”

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 10-14-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

If you look at the competing tax plans, it may not necessarily be true that Clinton would raise your taxes — but that’s because those who benefit the most likely aren’t paying income taxes in the first place. Clinton’s latest scheme doubles the existing child tax credit for families with children age four or under to $2,000, and it would be a refundable tax credit (read: income redistribution). According to Clinton aides, it’s part of an overall promise to eventually “expand the tax credit for families with older children, and to make more refundable tax credits available to low-income workers without children.”

Naturally, Hillary would get that money back to the Treasury by soaking the rich25. Her proposal would increase the top-end marginal rates, take more from investors, businesses and estates, and cap several popular tax breaks for top-tier earners like Trump, who’s a favorite whipping boy for Clinton and her leftist ilk based on his wealth. (Of course, thanks to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary is a top-tier earner as well — but people don’t perceive her as being one of the “top 1%.”)

On the other hand, Trump’s plan would simplify things26. He proposes cutting the number of rates from seven to just three, and lowering the high-end rate from the 39.6% toll originally put in place by Hillary’s husband, trimmed down by George W. Bush, and restored by Barack Obama in 2012. Trump would bring the top rate down to 33% — close to where it was before Bill Clinton raised it in 199327, although still short of the 28% top bracket enjoyed under Ronald Reagan. Capital gains would also get a small benefit, with the rate lowered to 20% from 23.8%.

Another benefit that all taxpayers would enjoy would be a substantial bump in the standard deduction to $15,000 for single taxpayers and $30,000 for couples. He even proposes a deduction of his own28 for child care expenses.

And in a move sure to anger progressive Wall Street occupiers, corporations would receive a hefty tax break, with their rate plummeting from 35% to 15%. This would transform the U.S. corporate tax rate from the highest in the First World to a levy below the global average29.

While Trump believes that the additional revenue to the federal government would bring the overall package closer to revenue-neutrality, he hedges his bet with a deduction cap of $100,000 for single filers and $200,000 for married couples.

It goes without saying that analysts are all over the map on how these competing tax plans would affect Americans and our economy. One take on this comes from the nonpartisan but conservative National Center for Policy Analysis. NCPA’s dynamic analysis of the Trump tax plan30 contends that the changes would lead to more than three million new private-sector jobs over the next decade. This would mean abundant opportunity for the 554,000 public-sector employees who would be furloughed thanks to $7.4 trillion in decreased federal revenues over that decade. GDP growth would also be enhanced.

As a counterpoint, NCPA predicts Hillary’s plan would be great for government employees31, but not so good for the five or so private-sector workers let go for each new bureaucrat hired. Federal revenues would increase by $615 billion over 10 years, but it’s likely this new revenue will still fall well short of the spending put in place by the second Clinton administration. (All figures cited by the NCPA are in comparison to CBO benchmarks laid out for the period.)

So how does Trump’s statement stack up? Well, it truly depends on what you consider to be a tax increase and where you stand on the economic ladder. If you consider slower economic growth and more government spending as a hidden tax on your income, then Trump is absolutely right. Certainly there are those who will benefit from Hillary’s plan, but it’s likely they weren’t adding much to the till anyway as low-wage earners who can take advantage of the existing tax structure to receive more back from the government than they put in. (Besides the federal government’s insistence on artificially high withholding each pay period, millions in the working and middle classes already give Uncle Sam an interest-free loan by adding to their backup withholding in such a way to ensure an even larger refund.)

Trump’s plan, however, would be more subtle but would spread the tax breaks among employees and employers alike. It would tend to flatten the system to some extent, although it’s still a far cry from more conservative proposals to either create a truly flat income tax or scrap the income-based paradigm altogether and adopt a consumption-based tax that proponents say would work more proportionately to income but reward those who save and invest.

In either case, though, things will remain very complex and we will still hear horror stories about the winners and losers in this game. Unfortunately, regardless of who wins, it’s likely our government will be spending the money faster than it comes in — and no one seems to be asking how our next president will address that potentially ruinous situation.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

Yemen Displays Obama Failures in a Nutshell32 — Just what did retaliatory strikes accomplish in this proxy war?

OPINION IN BRIEF

Jonah Goldberg: “Celebrities serve as a kind of secular aristocracy in our culture, getting away with behaviors we would not tolerate from anyone else. Barbra Streisand reportedly demands that her staff not look her in the eye. Sean Penn had an assistant swim the dangerous and fetid currents of New York’s East River just to bring him a cigarette. Sylvester Stallone once stopped an interview until his hotel room was painted a more desirable color. Sometimes the self-indulgence spills out of the category of mere arrogant eccentricity. Money alone doesn’t account for what Bill Cosby is alleged to have done. British BBC ‘personality’ Jimmy Savile sexually preyed on children for decades — and got away with it because he was just too ‘important’ to be exposed. Whether you believe some, none or all of the allegations against Donald Trump, the remarkable thing is that the only reason he’s being held to account for them is that he dared descend from the constellation of stars into the terra firma of politics, where the rules are slightly different — but only slightly (see: Clinton, William J.; Kennedy, John F.; et al.). Billy Bush’s career is merely collateral damage caused by Trump’s wrenching migration. One can only imagine what repugnancies will remain unknown, so long as rock stars and rappers, actors, jocks, idols, divas and Hollywood doyennes stay in their royal chambers for us to worship from afar.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “He who sees the truth, let him proclaim it, without asking who is for it or who is against it.” —Henry George (1839-1897)

Alpha Jackass: “Look, if I watched Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me. I understand. And if I was listening to Rush Limbaugh, I’d say, man, that’s terrible. Fortunately there are more diverse sources of information.” —Barack Obama

Nailed it: “The most powerful weapon deployed by the Clintons is the corporate media, the press. Let’s be clear on one thing: The corporate media in our country is no longer involved in journalism. They are a political special interest no different than any lobbyist or other financial entity with a total political agenda. And the agenda is not for you, it’s for themselves. Their agenda is to elect Crooked Hillary Clinton at any cost, at any price, no matter how many lives they destroy. For them, it’s a war, and for them, nothing at all is out of bounds.” —Donald Trump

Braying Jenny: “I could just feel his presence behind me [on the debate stage]. I thought, whoa, this is really weird. I was just trying to stay focused, trying to keep my composure.” —Hillary Clinton playing the scared woman card after her second debate with Trump

Hyper hypocrisy: “I can’t stop thinking about this [Trump video]. It has shaken me to my core in a way I could not have predicted. I know this is a campaign but this isn’t about politics. It’s about basic human decency.” —Michelle Obama campaigning for the Clintons

And last… “Referring to Trump, Michelle said she hasn’t heard such words demeaning women since, well, since Wednesday night’s White House hip-hop party.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.