“there is only a decade until Social Security hits a brick wall that will trigger automatic cuts to benefits (and even less time until parts of Medicare go over a cliff). Rather than facing that problem and proposing solutions, however, the Republican Party’s newly adopted platform embraces the plan that the old GOP criticized eight years ago: Do nothing and wait for the consequences to arrive.
In the new platform.. the Republican Party says it will “not cut one penny” from Social Security or Medicare and will also oppose efforts to raise the retirement age.”
…
“Choosing to do nothing is still a choice. And we know exactly where the path that both Biden and Donald Trump have picked will end. When Social Security hits insolvency in the early 2030s, beneficiaries will see an automatic cut to their monthly checks. Right now, the trustees that run the program estimate that the cut will be 21 percent, with further cuts likely in future years if nothing changes. This is the outcome that the Republican Party’s new platform promises to deliver.
Indeed, at last month’s debate Trump and Biden both tried to blame the other for trying to change Social Security, while neither presented a workable plan to keep the program solvent or phase it out.”
https://reason.com/2024/07/09/republicans-confirm-their-plan-to-let-social-security-go-insolvent/
“Both sides in the case agreed that a former president can be prosecuted for “unofficial acts,” a point that Chief Justice John Roberts affirmed in his majority opinion. But Roberts added that a former president is “absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.”
It is not clear exactly which conduct falls into that “exclusive sphere,” although Roberts said conversations in which Trump urged the Justice Department to investigate his bogus claims of systematic election fraud clearly did. Adding to the uncertainty, the majority said even “official acts” outside “the core” of a president’s duties merit “at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution,” which the government can overcome only if it “can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'”
The strictness of that test, combined with the lack of clarity about which acts are “official,” suggests that the distinction between “absolute” and “presumptive” immunity is apt to dissolve in practice. And even if it proves meaningful, the Court said absolute immunity might ultimately be required for all conduct “within the outer perimeter” of a president’s “official responsibility.”
Under the majority’s reasoning, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a president “will be insulated from criminal prosecution” when he “uses his official powers in any way.” That shield, Sotomayor said, would extend to a president who “orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,” who “organizes a military coup to hold onto power,” who “takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon,” or who insists that the Justice Department use fabricated evidence in a criminal case.
Instead of explaining why immunity would not apply in such situations, Roberts faulted Sotomayor for “fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals.” He dismissed the threat posed by lawless presidents because he was focused on the supposed need to protect “an energetic executive” from the threat of criminal liability.
As Sotomayor noted, however, presidents have been operating under that threat for a long time. “Every sitting President,” she wrote, “has so far believed himself under the threat of criminal liability after his term in office and nevertheless boldly fulfilled the duties of his office.”
Former President Richard Nixon, who did not suffer from a notable lack of executive energy, evidently shared that long-standing assumption. After he resigned amid the Watergate scandal, Nixon accepted a pardon from his successor, Gerald Ford, that covered any federal offenses he may have committed as president.
According to the proposed articles of impeachment, those offenses included many acts that would count as “official” in Roberts’ book, such as “false or misleading public statements,” misuse of the CIA and the IRS, and interference with an FBI investigation. If Nixon was immune from prosecution for those acts, his pardon is a bit of a puzzle.
As that episode illustrates, we need not conjure “extreme hypotheticals” to understand the danger of a president who feels unbound by the law. In the real world, the risk of presidential paralysis pales beside the risk of presidential impunity.”
https://reason.com/2024/07/10/determined-to-avoid-presidential-paralysis-scotus-endorses-presidential-impunity/
Behind the Deal: Spies, a Killer, Secret Messages and Unseen Diplomacy
https://www.yahoo.com/news/behind-deal-spies-killer-secret-114416710.html
“Last September, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill mandating a $20 minimum wage for fast food workers. The new wage is among the highest in the county, surpassing even Washington, D.C.’s $17.50 minimum wage. While supporters touted the wage increase as a way to help struggling Californians, detractors warned that restaurant owners would respond by laying off workers, cutting their hours, or speeding up the already starting shift to automation.
The law went into effect in April, meaning that it’s likely too early to tell what the ultimate effects of the law will be. However, a recent report from the Associated Press detailed concerns from several California fast food restaurant owners who say they’ve been forced to reduce hours and hike food prices.
“We kind of just cut where we can,” Lawrence Cheng, whose family owns several Wendy’s franchises told the A.P. “I schedule one less person, and then I come in for that time that I didn’t schedule and I work that hour.”
Juancarlos Chacon, who owns nine Jersey Mikes locations in Los Angeles told the A.P. that he’s resorted to reducing staff, cutting his part-time workers by about 20 employees. He’s also had to raise prices. A turkey sub, for example, that used to be under $10 now costs $11.15. As a result, the amount customers spend, he says, has been falling.
“I’ve been in the business for 25 years and two different brands and I never had to increase the amount of pricing that I did this past time in April,” he told the A.P.”
https://reason.com/2024/07/10/californias-minimum-wage-law-has-led-some-employers-to-cut-hours-and-hike-prices/
“”Many developed countries have repealed their net wealth taxes in recent years,” Cristina Enache wrote for the Tax Foundation in a June report on such levies around the world. “They raise little revenue, create high administrative costs, and induce an outflow of wealthy individuals and their money. Many policymakers have also recognized that high taxes on capital and wealth damage economic growth.”
Depending on how high the tax is set, Enache cautioned, it can erase any gains people might make on their investments. “For safe investments like bonds or bank deposits, a wealth tax of 2 or 3 percent may confiscate all interest earnings, leaving no increase in savings over time.”
Worse, wealth taxes depend on government officials’ ability to accurately assess the value of fluctuating holdings in stocks, property, businesses, and the like. That’s a big ask even if you pretend that tax officials are likely to be honest in such efforts.
“The Amsterdam stock market fell by around 13pc in 2022 as inflation soared – but the tax office assumed investors generated returns of 5.5pc, and taxed them accordingly,” Charlotte Gifford wrote for The Telegraph about the administration of the Dutch wealth tax.
The Supreme Court in the Netherlands ruled that the wealth tax hits people excessively hard relative to actual earnings and that it’s unacceptably discriminatory while also violating rights to property ownership. Just weeks ago, the Dutch court revisited its ruling and found legislative efforts to fix the wealth tax inadequate. Hundreds of thousands of people are now owed refunds.
Enache examines several arguments for wealth taxes, including claims that they encourage more productive use of assets or their transfer to entrepreneurs who are better at producing value. But wealth taxes can also encourage consumption among those who fear they might as well enjoy assets now rather than have them confiscated later. They also incentivize businesses to pay large dividends while discouraging growth.”
https://reason.com/2024/07/12/supreme-court-left-the-door-open-for-a-wealth-tax-but-its-still-a-terrible-idea/
Liberia: Ruled by Hypocrisy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD82d4eD6lY
Explaining Africa’s Slave Trades
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUvKGFH67Ug
An Escalating War in the Middle East
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm9e4ojicwc
Matt Pottinger: Searching for an Endgame With China | Foreign Affairs Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Res-P1ErFvw
“What Harris’s career has made clear is that she’s more likely to pursue incremental progress than big, ambitious ideas. That’s why if elected, it’s likely that her administration would simply be an extension of the current one rather than a disruption.
On the campaign trail this week, several priorities have come into focus, with the economy and affordability still at the top of the list. Harris continues to talk about prioritizing the middle class, just as Biden did: “Building up the middle class will be a defining goal of my presidency,” Harris said at her first major campaign rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on Tuesday. “When our middle class is strong, America is strong.”
To support that swath of Americans, improving the care economy — those services that focus on children and the elderly — could be one of the major policy areas she may come to prioritize.
She would zero in on a straightforward policy agenda, said Carmel Martin, who served as the vice president’s domestic policy adviser from 2022 to 2023: a focus on “economic progress while bringing down inflation, expanding access to services that people need — health care being at the front of the line — and protecting reproductive rights.”
Harris has already shown signs of this focus, saying in a campaign address on Monday that she believes “in a future where no child has to grow up in poverty; where every person can buy a home, start a family, and build wealth; and where every person has access to paid family leave and affordable child care.” All of these stances are essentially what Biden has pitched before.
The fact that Harris has shown she’s not a hardened ideologue means that she can be swayed by political headwinds, giving social movements an opportunity to push various agendas.
Some of the country’s most transformational legislation, for example, didn’t come directly from presidents who were ideological hardliners, but rather from presidents who were willing to listen to social movements and public sentiment — as was the case during the Civil Rights Era.”
https://www.vox.com/2024-elections/362619/kamala-harris-president-vision-political-ideology-2024-election