The Patriot Post Digest 5-11-2017

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 5-11-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

May 11, 2017

IN TODAY’S EDITION

The recriminations and investigations are only just getting started regarding Comey.
Buffett knows what businesses need more than tax cuts — single-payer health care.
The ethanol boondoggle is here to stay, announces drain-the-swamp Trump administration.
Daily Features: Top Headlines, Cartoons, Columnists and Short Cuts.

THE FOUNDATION

“Stability in government is essential to national character and to the advantages annexed to it, as well as to that repose and confidence in the minds of the people, which are among the chief blessings of civil society.” —James Madison (1788.)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Five Observations on Comey’s Firing1

As the dust settles on Donald Trump’s not-so-shocking firing of FBI Director James Comey2, here are a few things of note.

First, what remains the most controversial and questionable aspect of Comey’s canning is the timing. Why now? Many see Trump’s explanation of being motivated by the recommendation from the Justice Department as dubious. And not surprisingly, Democrats and the Leftmedia have latched onto this issue as supportive evidence of a supposed cover-up as they continue to beat the drum on still unsubstantiated Russia-Trump collusion narrative. Trump hasn’t helped his case by thanking Comey in his termination letter for alerting him to the investigation.

Second, there are contradictory reports on whether Comey had recently requested more funding and staff for the Russia probe. If he did, that fuels Democrats' torches.

Third, contrary to the MSM’s suggestion that Trump may be attempting a cover-up, firing the FBI director does nothing to end the continuing investigation. And if rumors are to be believed that staff within the FBI were caught off guard and dismayed by Trump’s firing of Comey, it would seem highly improbable that they would simply sit on damning evidence, should such evidence exist. Not while the intelligence community is leaking like a sieve.

Fourth, the MSM’s meltdown and over-the-top sensationalized reporting over the firing speaks more to the media’s commitment to opposing anything Trump than it does to any genuine concern or obligation to objective journalism. Leftmedia descriptions of Trump’s actions ranged from it being a “coup” and “Nixonian” to even being a “dictator’s stand against inquiry.” Talk about hyperbole.

Finally, it’s almost universally undeniable that Comey had to go, because he had become too political. The irony in the whole saga is that Comey was attempting to rise above the fray and remain impartial to avoid becoming a political football. Like the referee who refuses to make the “controversial” penalty call to avoid accusations of having unfairly impacted the outcome of the game, Comey sought to wiggle around Hillary Clinton’s obvious violations of the law. While pointing out the fact that she did violate the law, he then let her off the hook by asserting that she didn’t mean to.

Now all that’s left are the months of recriminations and investigations. It should be fun.

Buffett’s Cogent, but Shortsighted, Point on Health Care3

The New York Times this week published an article on billionaire Warren Buffett’s sentiments regarding corporate roadblocks. According to Buffett, Republican lawmakers and company officials are too fixated on corporate tax rates4, the lowering of which he contends would do little to propel economic growth. (We strongly disagree, but that’s another topic.) Buffett’s justification is this: “If you go back to 1960 or thereabouts, corporate taxes were about 4 percent of GDP. … And now, they’re about 2 percent of GDP.” Meanwhile, a half-century ago, “Health care was 5 percent of GDP, and now it’s about 17 percent.” His statement is comprehensive, meaning he’s referring to the health care system in its entirety. Consequently, he surmises, “Medical costs are the tapeworm of American economic competitiveness.”

Someone should ask him why he helped finance Burger King’s corporate inversion5 to lower its tax bill if corporate taxes don’t matter so much.

Buffett is right to pinpoint how ridiculous health care costs are today. In fact, it would be laughable if it weren’t so absurd. Providing these benefits is a huge financial burden for most businesses, particularly small ones. And yet an excerpt from the Times underscores the shortcomings of Buffett’s solution: “Mr. Buffett is a Democrat, but his business partner, Charles T. Munger, is a Republican — and a rare one who has advocated a single-payer health care system. Under his plan, which Mr. Buffett agrees with, the United States would enact a sort of universal type of coverage for all citizens — perhaps along the lines of the Medicaid system — with an opt-out provision that would allow the wealthy to still get concierge medicine.”

Simply stated, Buffett would rather the government take on most of the cost of health care. Well guess what may be needed to help pay for it? Even higher taxes on corporations. And even then, a single-payer system would set us up for even worse national debt problems in the future (as if the outlook isn’t bad enough). Health care costs need to be reduced significantly. As Star Parker put it6, “Health care markets are distorted from top to bottom by government, regulations and bureaucrats. Nothing is more personal than health care; sadly, in no marketplace are individuals less in control of their own selves.” The whole system needs to be revamped. If done properly, businesses can be saved from drowning in health care costs. As for tax reform? Well, that would just be icing on the cake. Regardless of Buffett’s point on GDP, you can’t reasonably argue that reducing the current 35% rate won’t result in far-reaching, very positive changes.

Top Headlines7

Aetna completely exits ObamaCare exchanges, cites massive losses. (Washington Examiner8.)

Republican senators won’t back Trump’s trade nominee Robert Lighthizer. (Washington Examiner9)

Soros-funded groups behind anti-Trump corporate targeting campaign. (The Washington Free Beacon10)

A 2016 election battleground state is investigating potential voter fraud. (The Daily Signal11)

New Jersey man’s confessed bombing plan is 95th terror plot in U.S. since 9/11. (The Daily Signal12)

IG: “IRS overpaid more than 600 employees approximately $4.2 million.” (CNS News13)

Shocking new DNA study reveals that human beings are divided into two genders! (Hot Air14)

Homosexual Never Trumper becomes latest victim of campus attacks on free speech. (The Washington Free Beacon15)

26% of Millennials in college say they plan on moving back home once they earn their degree. (USA Today16)

Vermont legislature becomes first in nation to legalize recreational marijuana. (Reason17)

Policy: Where democracy really does die in darkness. (City Journal18.)

Policy: A fool’s errand: Al Gore’s $15 trillion carbon tax. (Washington Examiner19)

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report20.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
The Ethanol Boondoggle Will Continue21

By Lewis Morris

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue informed reporters this past weekend that one promise Donald Trump intends to keep is his support for ethanol22. At a farming event in Iowa with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and Rep. Steve King, Perdue said, “Ethanol is here to stay, and we’re going to work for new technologies to be more efficient.”

Unfortunately, this is one Trump campaign promise that would have been good to break. The Renewable Fuel Standard — known as the ethanol mandate — is a classic example of what happens when the government interferes in the marketplace, with an agenda to boot. Through presidential administrations both Republican and Democrat, the government has heavily subsidized the production and distribution of ethanol, as well as required a certain amount of its use, in the hopes of making renewable fuels the next great thing.

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 5-11-2017
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

That hope hasn’t been realized.

The EPA, which last November called for 19.28 billion gallons of ethanol to be blended into the nation’s gasoline supply, has maintained for years that ethanol is just what the environment needs. As the legend goes, ethanol burns cleaner than gasoline, which is good for the air, and it relieves our dependency on oil, which is good for the Earth.

So, when corn prices are forced higher because 40% of the crop is grown specifically for ethanol production, we shouldn’t mind. Nor should we care that this starts a chain reaction of price fluctuations that lead to more expensive food. And we shouldn’t trouble ourselves that gasoline is comparatively more expensive per gallon with ethanol or that the biofuel harms automobile engines. We’re doing a good thing for the environment.

Except we’re not.

Farmers are so eager to plant corn to sell to ethanol producers, they are foregoing planting other crops that have real value in the nation’s food supply (and the world’s, for that matter). Too much planting of any one crop on the same land will eventually lead to nutrient-poor soil, which saps the land of its ability to produce good crops.

Soil depletion and erosion are just one part of it. Billions of gallons of water that could be used for other purposes are diverted to produce ethanol. The additional fertilizers used to produce more corn are polluting the water table at a greater rate than would otherwise take place.

All this abuse to the land and to taxpayer’s pocket books has not yielded any positive change to the environment. There is no substantive proof that ethanol consumption is leading to lower CO2 levels, or that it is having any effect on the global surface temperature, which has remained relatively unchanged for 19 years.

Knowing all these things, why is Trump backing ethanol so vigorously? One would think that the man who campaigned on “draining the swamp” and getting the engine of American commerce running again would look at the ethanol mandate and consider it a relic of a bygone “progressive” era. Surely he sees that it’s exactly the kind of cronyist graft that typifies the swamp.

Well, Trump made a promise to farmers when he was on the campaign trail in Iowa in 2015. Like virtually every other presidential hopeful, with the notable exception of Ted Cruz23, Trump praised ethanol, and promised to support its mandated use as president.

Farmer and grain futures trader Jerry Gulke put it as plain as can be: “The farm states put Trump over the top,” Gulke told CNBC24. “You could say Trump owes us something.”

Trump recognized the sway that the farming community had on his victory last month when he made an about-face on dumping NAFTA25. Perdue and other members of his administration told him it would be a terrible political mistake, pointing out that his rural, blue-collar base would be hardest hit in a post-NAFTA America.

“It shows that I do have a very big farmer base, which is good,” Trump said. “They like Trump, but I like them, and I’m going to help them.”

As far as ethanol is concerned, what this shows is Washington, DC, at its worst, churning along on cronyism and wealth-redistributing political favors despite all the signs pointing to bad decisions being made worse by reaffirmation of a failed policy. Evidently there are some parts of the swamp that will never be drained.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

The Facebook Empire Strikes Back26 — You’ve probably noticed a lot less of what matters to you in your news feed and a lot more of what matters to Facebook.
Leave the Kids Alone, Progressives27 — Should elementary school kids be performing plays about “gender identity”? The question should answer itself.
ACLU: Campaign Rhetoric Means More Than Text of Law28 — The Fourth Circuit considers whether Trump’s speeches trump the text of his travel ban executive order.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Tony Perkins: Persecuted, but Not Forgotten29
Cal Thomas: Awards Have Lost Their Meaning30
R. Emmett Tyrrell: Chaos and the Commentariat31

For more, visit Right Opinion32.

OPINION IN BRIEF

Tony Perkins: “Scientists have found 1,559 genetic differences between boys and girls — but try telling that to Oregon officials! The radicals in the Beaver State are doing everything they can to gloss over those distinctions in their latest push to wipe gender off drivers' licenses. In what ought to make every American shake their head, Transgender Oregonians are lobbying for the change, which would let residents identify as ‘nonbinary’ (neither male nor female) on their most significant form of identification. Yesterday, state leaders hosted a public hearing on the idea, which would let people choose between three options: M, F, and X. Amazingly, in every mainstream article about the proposal, not one person brought up the obvious — which is that this isn’t about sensitivity; it’s about safety. It’s fine if you’re a kid playing make-believe, but if you’re a society in the age of terrorism, security, not to mention reality, should be the top consideration. Drivers' licenses are meant to be the most dependable form of ID that our country offers. How can the people working to keep us safe do so when a possible suspect could be described as either a man or a woman — or neither — depending on how they feel at that particular time? … But by letting people create their own realities, they’re losing their grip on their own.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “I want people to be able to get what they need to live: enough food, a place to live, and an education for their children. Government does not provide these as well as private charities and businesses.” —Davy Crockett (1786-1836)

For the record: “Trump is no intelligence mastermind, and conspiring with Putin and Wikileaks behind the scenes to arrange the hacking of DNC emails isn’t Trump’s style; Trump’s style would be to have something like that drop into his lap and go out in public and cheer for it happening, which is what he actually did.” —Dan McLaughlin

Lots of fluff, little substance: “No one has yet to explain to me what the core crime [is] that would be investigated with regard to Russian influence.” —law professor Jonathan Turley

Leftist contradictions, part I:

“I do not necessarily support the president’s decision. … I think if the president … had fired [James Comey] when he first came in, he would not have to be in a position now where he is trying to make up a story about why. It does not meet the smell test.” —Maxine Waters

“If [Hillary Clinton] had won the White House, I believe that given what [Comey] did to her, and what he tried to do, she should have fired him.” —Maxine Waters

Leftist contradictions, part II:

“What must happen now is that [Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein] appoints a special prosecutor to oversee this investigation.” —Chuck Schumer Wednesday morning

“There are three things that our caucus agreed must happen right away. First, Mr. Rosenstein should not be the one to appoint a special prosecutor.” —Chuck Schumer Wednesday afternoon

And last… “Trump would’ve gotten less ‘cover-up!’ coverage if he instead deleted subpoenaed docs, used BleachBit, then destroyed phones with a hammer.” —Twitter satirist @hale_razor

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.